A new use for spokes

> http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm

At what point--60, 98, 138, 155, or 166 mp--is it unnecessary or
impossible for the rider unable to apply power by pedaling?

And why?

Remember, Sam Whittington must be supplying _all_ the power at 80+ mph
in the Varna Diablo II without any draft.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Mark Drela

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 8:22:03 PM9/17/07

to

In article <slrnfesms8....@bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> writes:

> 1335W is a lot, but sustainable by a fit rider for a little while. I
> don't know how they do these attempts-- does the rider let go of a rope
> once the car has got up to speed? Or is he required to remain detached
> at all times (which begs the question how does he get started).
>
> To do 50mph you'd need 400W, which is within the capability of many
> riders for short periods, so I'm not sure why you can't pedal a
> stationary bicycle at more than that speed.

About 10 years ago I ran the numbers on the Howard speed record attempt.
If I recall correctly, the "negative drag" resulting from the forward draft
behind the windscreen, combined with Howard's ground speed, provided
about 5 hp (3750W) of propulsive power. This is more than enough
to overcome the rolling resistance and spoke drag losses. I wouldn't
be surprised if he was either riding the brakes the whole way,
or was constantly bumping into the rail mounted on the car.

IMO, these speed records demonstrate a very high guts/brains ratio,
but not much more.

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 8:28:13 PM9/17/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

>>>>> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with
>>>>> the same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to
>>>>> propelling the bicycle.

>>>> Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the
>>>> slipstream at 166 mph without putting in any power at all?

>>>> If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the
>>>> rider still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance
>>>> and other things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just
>>>> that the amount needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed
>>>> as normal bike riders are used to.

>>> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the
>>> highway at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes
>>> me forward. The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It
>>> wouldn't surprise me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the
>>> right distance allowed a cyclist to maintain his speed without
>>> energy input at the pedals.

>> Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that
>> although we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling
>> resistance (1300W or so based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you
>> only need half that or less for a special LSR bike), that's still

>> quite a small force at these high speeds. The air stream only has

>> to be pushing you along with about 5N, which is perfectly
>> believable.

> This page makes two points:

> First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled
> in a parking lot.

It didn't say how he got it going and how long he kept it going, it
having been pushed to a start. As I mentioned, the gear is too high
to propel the bicycle as is mentioned with respect to Abbott's bicycle
that could just be ridden at 2mph. The subsequent bicycles had higher
gearing and were even less capable of being ridden.

> Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph
> Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and
> legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag.

On a track bicycle with feet attached to the pedals, when someone
pushes the bicycle, the feet and legs will go around with the pedals
unless the rider is thrown.

> http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp

That would not have convinced the public that he had "ridden" to that
speed although it would have had the same effect. As I said, pedaling
a regular exercise bicycle with no energy absorbing brake is not
possible over 50mph, even for a short time, certainly not for the
duration of a land speed record run.

> There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced
> by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost
> sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph.

> You've mentioned tire drag. I suspect that heavy duty motorcycle
> slicks on small rims produce more drag than the racing bicycle tires
> that we tend to think of.

I don't understand what you are deriving from these computations. The
bicycle had to be towed up to near the final top speed, there being no
way a rider could get over walking speed with all his power to the
pedals. At that high speed, the rider hasn't enough input to turn the
rear wheel that is not on the ground as the picture of Howard shows in
the "warm up" picture.

Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his
pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well:

Jobst Brandt

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 10:34:28 PM9/17/07

to

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:58:14 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:

[snip]

>Remember, Sam Whittington must be supplying _all_ the power at 80+ mph
>in the Varna Diablo II without any draft.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

Aaargh!

Whittingham!

Carl Fogelton

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 10:37:30 PM9/17/07

to

On 18 Sep 2007 00:28:13 GMT, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[snip]

>Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his
>pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well:
>
>http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Please tell us where Mile-a-minute Murphy knew what you claim he knew.

Otherwise, you're just claiming that he _must_ have agreed with you.

The only comment that I see seems to contradict your theory:

"EXPERIMENTS MADE WITH PIECES OF PAPER DROPPED FROM THE MOVING CAR
SHOWED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCTION OR WIND PRESSURE OF ANY KIND WITHIN
THE HOOD."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

datakoll

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 11:19:48 PM9/17/07

to

60! gee whizz. I use the eddy on the road. Try one side then the
other. A treeline and wind direction can propel me forward well beyond
the wind's actual direction.
All river runners use eddy to go upstream or rest stationary behind a
rock in mid current.
Often a long eddy carries the canoe upstream without paddling effort
only directional control.
River turns left, an eddy forms around the corner curling bankward
from the main current then turning or eddying upstream rejoining the
downstream flow below the 'apex' as behind the streamliner

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 11:26:39 PM9/17/07

to

Here's Murphy's account, from the article:

After eight weeks of hard training, I was ready for the test. I used a
Tribune bicycle geared to 112, for the first trial. . . .

[various problems leading up to successful ride]

After a hurried conversation with Sam Booth, the engineer, I donned my
racing clothes, took my position with the bicycle behind the train. I
took hold of the special rod that was placed on the back of the car to
prevent my front wheel from striking the car. This precaution probably
saved my life. Mr. Fullerton then shouted to me, "Are you ready?" I
answered, "All right." The signal was passed to Sam Booth, in the
engine cab, and I was off for the famous ride.

The blood tinkled through my veins, but I soon settled down to
business. I let go of the rod, and as soon as I did, I experienced an
entirely different feeling compared with my previous rides. It was a
hold, then shove sensation. I was riding in a maelstrom of dust,
cinders, paper, and other small particles of matter. The whipsaw
feeling, through a veritable storm of fire, became harder every
second. I was determined to win, and with each push of the pedals I
was putting every ounce of energy into the ride . . . .

I raised my head from the handlebars, but quick as a flash I fell back
150 feet. With all the energy and power at my command, I tried to
regain the lost ground. It was no use; I was doomed to failure; I
could feel myself getting weaker every second.

[first 1/4 mile reached in 15 & 1/5th seconds]

I offered up this prayer to God: "Oh, my God, am I to make a failure
of this ride?" My prayer was answered; an indescribable feeling came
upon me. It was the hand of God. New vigor and energy came with each
push of the pedals; the old bicycle responded like it never had
before. Foot by foot I could see and feel myself gaining the lost
ground. . . .

The half-mile had been passed in 29 & 2/5 seconds. On I pedalled
through this fire of hot cinders and rubber, but with each sting it
made me more determined. Wobbling to and fro, but still gaining, the
three-quarter post was passed in 44 seconds. The engine was warming up
by this time, and flew into the last quarter at the rate of 70 miles
per hour. The roar and din of the train was terrifying. I had
completely lost my steadiness, but continuing to labor madly, I kept
on gaining, and just as I regained all the lost ground, I saw Mr.
Fullerton wave the American flag at the same time the signal was given
to Engineer Booth to shut off.

What a pleasing feeling . . .

[Murphy then crashed into the rear of the decelerating train, but was
grabbed and pulled to safety.]

I would never have been able to back-pedal in time, and would have
been compelled to finish on the ties, which, no doubt, would have
resulted disastrously to me. . . .

[So the bicycle was probably a fixie, not a freewheel. Murphy was
lucky to have been pulled aboard, since the special smooth wooden
track between the rails wasn't really long enough for him to slow down
by back-pedalling before he would have hit the normal railroad ties
and crashed.]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078902/

Tact forbids me to comment on the religious aspect.

I'm suspicious of most Murphy's numbers in the sense that he probably
learned them afterward instead of noticing them as he was riding.

I'm even more suspicious of the 150-foot _size_ of the initial lag
when the train dropped him. Making up 150 feet in less than 45 seconds
is only an average about 3 feet per second faster than the train, but
it's hard to see how Murphy could overtake even the special back
windshield of the train when it was 150 feet away--drafting from 150
feet seems unlikely. A lag of considerably less than 150 feet seems
more likely.

The dust, cinders, and trash were thrown up behind the train, just as
dust is thrown up behind cars on dirt roads, with the burning cinders
coming from the engine.

What Murphy called the unusual buffeting and back and forth motion
could be either the hoped-for "vortex" pushing him forward at 60~70
mph, or just the kind of buffeting familiar to modern riders who are
used to semi's passing, but unfamiliar to bicyclists in 1899.

But I see nothing in account that suggests that Murphy was doing
anything except pedalling as hard as he could. His religious comments
are no evidence of probity either way--he could have been a rigidly
honest fellow, a calculating charlatan, or just sincerely mistaken
about what was happening.

Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does
Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by
the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence
supports the theory?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

r15...@aol.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2007, 11:37:48 PM9/17/07

to

On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

> Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does
> Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by
> the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence
> supports the theory?

Dave Stoller drafting a semi at 60 mph in his little ring.

Robert

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 12:50:05 AM9/18/07

to

Dear Robert,

For those not familiar with 1979 movies . . .

Or short-lived TV series . . .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080203/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 1:35:52 AM9/18/07

to

Dear Ben,

Near the bottom is a table of land speed records by speed (not date):

http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp

Speeds up to 96 mph were achieved with motorcycles in 1950. The
shields pulled by motorcycles presumably produced far less draft than
the shields pulled by cars at the same speeds.

So did the bicyclists behind motorcycles have to pedal harder than the
bicyclists behind cars?

The same question applies to numerous motorcycle pacings in the 60 mph
range, where the two locomotive pacers are listed.

Here's a French site with pictures showing how small some of the
motorcycle and car shields were:

http://lepetitbraquet.free.fr/chron13_rdvmort.html

Vanderstuyft, for example, seems to be doing 120 kmh, over 70 mph,
behind an early pacing motorcycle with no shield at all. Right now,
Magnus Bäckstedt is hoping to break the _hour_ derny record, which
stands at 66 kmh (41 mph), roughly 30 mph slower--which suggests that
sprinting behind the comparatively feeble draft of a derny can put a
rider past Mile-a-minute-Murphy behind a gigantic shield built on the
back of a train:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep30news

In all cases that I've seen, the bicycles are drafting close enough to
need a safety bar behind the pacer, whether it's a locomotive, a car,
or a motorcycle.

If Jobst's theory is correct, a shield on a motorcycle can provide
enough draft to tow a free bicycle effortlessly, so what would the
effect of a much larger shield on a car or locomotive be?

Perhaps there is no increase in draft with a larger shield at the same
speed for the pocket occupied by the bicycle?

Perhaps the bicyclists automatically back-pedalled harder to counter
the greater draft, keeping silent about the reversed effort? Or
changed their posture to reduce the huge wind at their backs?

Perhaps the theory that bicycles will roll along at 60 to 160 mph
without power behind pacers is mistaken?

Sam Whittingham pedalled the Varna Diablo II to over 80 mph with no
drafting, so it seems strange to argue that Mile-a-minute Murphy and
others could not pedal usefully while drafting behind a train going 20
mph slower. Whether they _need_ to pedal is really the question.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ron Ruff

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 3:18:53 AM9/18/07

to

On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

> Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does
> Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by
> the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence
> supports the theory?

Some numbers assuming some reasonable guesses: *zero* air drag, Crr= .
006, cyclist and equipment weight of 230 lbs, transmission losses =
30W, power output = 500W

Speed = 170mph... at 400W speed = 134mph... at 300W speed = 98mph

So... it appears to be possible to produce enough power to overcome
the tire resistance in still air and attain high speeds. But if you
can get a nice "tailwind" in the vortex, you may be able to just coast
as well.

datakoll

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 7:33:09 AM9/18/07

to

side to side wallowing occurs rearward of the reverse airflow. In
Nascar, the lose of control seen when the following car pivots around
a central point

Ben C

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 8:32:52 AM9/18/07

to

On 2007-09-17, carl...@comcast.net <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:

[...]

> As for the "vortex", consider Chalo's comment about the faster he goes
> on his motorcycle behind a windscreen, the more he feels pressure on
> his back.
>
> Sticking your hand out to one side at the same speed will help compare
> the forces involved.

If you stick your hand out you feel the wind rushing past you at 166mph.
That doesn't tell you anything obvious what force you might have on your
back from the "vortex".

> It would be interesting if someone would diagram whatever "vortex" air
> flow they think is created by a pace car's shield going 138, 152, or
> 166 mph that can push a bicyclist at the same speed.

Working out how much draft you get from one of those pace cars is not
straightforward. The best we can do is crude estimates to establish
plausibility.

One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph
without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to
do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that
argument falls down.

Another argument is "it's one thing for the wind to pick up a bit of
dust or paper but that it could drag a heavy rider along is not
believable". But the wind only needs to apply about 5N (the weight of
500g on your back) to overcome RR. So I think that argument falls down
too.

Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike with
such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a picture of
someone riding around a car park on one of the machines. It may be that
it's not possible to get started on one without a push, but that doesn't
mean it it's impossible to ride once you have got going.

So crude estimates based on physics don't help much in this case. They
seem to show that either scenario (or any scenario in between-- some
negative drag but not enough) is possible.

[...]

> At what point--60, 98, 138, 155, or 166 mp--is it unnecessary or
> impossible for the rider unable to apply power by pedaling?

I don't know. It may be that he has to pedal at all those speeds, or
there may really be a speed above which he doesn't have to.

> And why?

All sorts of properties of turbulence and the way that air behaves at
high speeds. Not something that it's easy to estimate like the energy
required to climb a hill.

Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll
settle for the cranks being necessary. Why else have them or, as you
explained, design them for efficiency?

datakoll

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 8:39:15 AM9/18/07

to

http://www.nytstore.com/ViewLargeImage.aspx?id=NSAP1252&frame=1&NAME

datakoll

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 9:06:40 AM9/18/07

to

>
> Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll

Utube on Howard shows Howard demonstrating pedal power at speed.

Ben C

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 10:42:59 AM9/18/07

to

On 2007-09-18, datakoll <data...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll
>
> Utube on Howard shows Howard demonstrating pedal power at speed.

Can analysis of the video reveal whether there is more tension in the
"top" or "bottom" chain run?

This is a fixer, so we need to be sure the bike is not pedalling him.

datakoll

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 10:53:18 AM9/18/07

to

http://webpages.atlanticbb.net/~ezahurak/gfx/orig/asshole.jpg

Ron Ruff

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 12:11:40 PM9/18/07

to

On Sep 18, 6:32 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph
> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to
> do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that
> argument falls down.

How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough
with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke drag?

At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for more
than few seconds.

Ben C

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 12:42:08 PM9/18/07

to

On 2007-09-18, Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:32 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph
>> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to
>> do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that
>> argument falls down.
>
> How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough
> with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke drag?

I was using Crr of 0.005, and weight of bike + rider of 1000N.

1000 * 0.005 = 5N

So 5N of force needed to overcome the wind. At 166mph, or-- damn now I
see where I went wrong I converted it to kph!-- I need m/s obviously.

So 166mph is 74m/s, which at 5N is 371W. Or 445W with Crr of 0.006.

> At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for more
> than few seconds.

So he doesn't need 1300W, but only, as you say, less than 500W.

Although we don't really know what Crr is-- at first I thought it might
be better than 0.005, but given that one of the bikes posted had a
motorbike front wheel it might be worse than that.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 1:26:52 PM9/18/07

to

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:11:40 -0700, Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Dear Ron,

A really crude check seems to agree with your ~500 watts.

If you plug in 166 mph, add a tailwind of 166 mph, you can change
tires and weight and cadence with this calculator:

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

It's not fair to the calculator to use it for such unholy purposes,
but the results do seem to agree with your lower figure.

For a 43-pound bike, hands-on-tops, and wind and speed set cancel at
166 mph, it predicts this kind of power:

180-lb 160-lb
rider rider
watts watts RR

228 207 0.00300 Rinkowsky radials
379 345 0.00500 wide high pressure slicks
455 414 0.00600 narrow racing tires
569 518 0.00750 robust touring tires

Among other things, we don't know the RR of whatever tires were used,
the weight of the rider, how smooth the salt flat course was, or how
much extra power the double drive transmission lost.

For a 25 pound bike and 180-pound rider at 60 mph with "robust touring
tires" (a guess at Mile-a-minute Murphy in 1899), the prediction is a
mere 189 watts.

Give him a 20 pound bike, slim him down to 160 pounds, and the power
drops to 166 watts.

If you then imagine that his 1899 tires on the custom board track were
as good as 0.00600 RR tires, 133 watts.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 3:36:20 PM9/18/07

to

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:32:52 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:

[snip]

>Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike with
>such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a picture of
>someone riding around a car park on one of the machines. It may be that
>it's not possible to get started on one without a push, but that doesn't
>mean it it's impossible to ride once you have got going.

[snip]

Dear Ben,

This is just a good spot to link to these pictures:

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1058&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

It's Meiffret being paced by Vanderstuyft (who held earlier speed
records).

(It's _not_ his final 204 kmh/127mph record set in 1962, but instead
an earlier 1952 picture.)

It seems to show that the huge gears can be pedaled behind no-shield
motorcycles in the countryside.

Note the two brake levers--probably a good idea instead of trying to
back-pedal a fixie with a 130 x 14.

It was taken after Meiffret's 1951 record taken after he set a 175 kmh
(108 mph) record in 1951.

Meiffret had at least two bikes geared 130 x 14:

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1056&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

That damned front sprocket is the equivalent of a 262.5 mm crank!

If he used that 130 x 14 for all his records (he may have changed it)
and used what appears to be a normal 700c tire, his cadence was 150
rpm for 108 mph and 175 rpm for 127 mph, which emphasizes why later
riders turned to double-reduction gearing to keep the cadence down.

However many teeth the front sprocket has here in the intermediate 176
kmh record picture, it's roughly as big as the front rim:

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1059&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0

I have no idea why Meiffret is touching his rear tire in this last
picture:

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1057&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

Checking his rear brake? Trying to spin himself up by hand? Holding
the bike steady for a trackstand? Testing his tire pressure during a
trackstand? Pulling a goathead out?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 3:59:45 PM9/18/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

> Dear Ron,

> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large
diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. Such an
arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be
nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and
rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the
enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our
everyday car's maximum speed.

Note that these salt flat bicycles used spoked wheels, probably for
turbulent air stability, and because spoke windage in the wheels was no
issue because the vortex behind the enclosure, more than enough, took
care of pushing the rider.

This matter came to my attention when I realized how little a rider
can increase speed when coasting downhill at over 40mph. This is also
what interested me in the effects shown in the wind drag item at:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html

Jobst Brandt

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 4:15:11 PM9/18/07

to

Carl Fogel writes

>> Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike
>> with such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a
>> picture of someone riding around a car park on one of the
>> machines. It may be that it's not possible to get started on one
>> without a push, but that doesn't mean it it's impossible to ride
>> once you have got going.

> This is just a good spot to link to these pictures:

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1058&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1056&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1059&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1057&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

You youngsters don't recall when wiping tires was de rigueur. It was
done all the time for just in case and of course only on tubulat tires.

Jobst Brandt

Ben C

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 4:44:55 PM9/18/07

to

On 2007-09-18, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
[...]

> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large
> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable.

What about this chap:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html

It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to
have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit.

He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!)

> Such an arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only
> be nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and
> rolling resistance.

I don't believe the drag is only nullified by the pace car-- it seems
likely the rider gets a bit of a "negative drag" i.e. positive tow, but
he probably needs to pedal a bit too.

Especially considering that Nuescheler could only do 102mph.

[...]

> Note that these salt flat bicycles used spoked wheels, probably for
> turbulent air stability, and because spoke windage in the wheels was no
> issue because the vortex behind the enclosure, more than enough, took
> care of pushing the rider.

One of them had a rear disk wheel I thought.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 4:49:59 PM9/18/07

to

>arrangement gets rid of all the drag . . .

[snip]

>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Here's a roller race page:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html

In the upper right, I see a 1965 time of 41.7 seconds for 1,000
meters, which works out to an _average_ speed of 53.6 mph.

But that's from a _standing_ start, so I'd be surprised if the high
speed isn't the 60 mph that you say is not attainable.

There are also rules that limit the gearing for roller races to

USCF Roller Racing Regulations: "1J4. In roller races, either road or
track bicycles may be used. All classes are restricted to a
development of 7.69 meters (25 feet 3 inches), and cranks must be at
least 165 millimeters long." --from 2006 USCF rule book

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html

My 53 x 11 would be grossly illegal under those rules, since it
develops 10.1 meters, well in excess of the 7.69 meter limit.

53/11 * 2096 = 10.0989

Note also that you can't cheat by using tiny cranks to raise your
overall effective gear ratio--they have to be at least 165 mm long.

The table on the page above indicates that a 53 x 15 is as high as a
53-tooth can go in roller racing. At even the _average_ speed of 53.6
mph, that's 194 rpm.

The land speed record bikes use considerably higher gearing that 53 x
15. Mile-a-minute Murphy used a 112-inch gear:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html

The roller limit is around 93 inches. Murphy's tire size is unknown,
but it sounds like a 53 x 12.5 would be our modern equivalent, if
gears came with half-teeth.

Then there's your claim about getting rid of all drag.

While "such an arrangement" gets rid of all the _wind_ drag, it
obviously adds the rolling resistance drag of spinning three extra
rollers and the transmission power loss of the belt driving the front
wheel.

There may also be more tire rolling resistance when the rear tire is
stuck down in the vee between _two_ rollers than when it rolls on flat
ground.

As the short table I posted above shows, an ordinary range of rolling
resistance can easily double the watts needed at high speeds when wind
drag is removed.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 5:07:46 PM9/18/07

to

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:44:55 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:

>On 2007-09-18, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>[...]
>> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large
>> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable.
>
>What about this chap:
>
> http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html
>
>It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to
>have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit.
>
>
>He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!)

[snip]

Dear Ben,

I see that he rollers 1,000 meters in 32.5 seconds at an average speed
of 83 mph.

That's considerably better than the 41.7 seconds and average 53.6 mph
speed in 1965 in the first page that I found:

I wonder whether your faster rider used the higher gearing forbidden
in USCF roller racing, where the limit is roughly 53 x 15.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ben C

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 5:29:03 PM9/18/07

to

I'm starting to suspect he's not allowed very high gearing either,
judging by his prodigious cadence record.

271rpm in 53x15 is 121kph. If they let him use a 53x11, he'd get 166kph
for his 271rpm.

Here we are:

http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/

"6.) absolute speed record: 164.1 km/h [102.0 mph] September 16,
2000. (54x11, 261 RPM)"

So he was using a 54x11 at 261rpm. I'm sure he could have gone "faster"
if he'd been allowed a higher gear.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 6:06:28 PM9/18/07

to

Dear Ben,

Yes, it seems reasonable to expect that he could have raised his speed
by using a much higher gear and cutting his amazing cadence in half or
more.

Thanks for digging that stuff up.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Message has been deleted

petey...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2007, 8:06:05 PM9/18/07

to

On Sep 17, 8:35 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Barry who? writes:
> >> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his
> >> bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't
> >> recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is
> >> a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph.
>
> http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm
>
> > I think the record is now 166.9 mph:
>
> http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp
>
> The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket.
> Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat
> ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding
> nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle.

I keep hearing this claim from Jobst and I think it is complete
nonsense--which is puzzling since most of his other posts seem to be
very well reasoned. I think the argument about not being able to
pedal a bicycle at more than 50 mph on rollers is also nonsense. I'd
like to know what by what reasoning you arrive at these conclusions?
Consider this--how much force is required to on the pedals to start a
bike using the normal high gear--say 53 by 13? Not very much. Now
consider the ratio of Howards gear to this one--it's slightly less
than six to one. In other words, you need roughly six times the
amount of force to propel a bike with this gearing, which seems
reasonable for a strong athlete.
>
> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same
> bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the
> bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider could
> rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or roughly
> 270km/h.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Message has been deleted

Carl Sundquist

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 12:50:44 AM9/19/07

to

<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:46f05b60$0$14095$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a bicycle
> at over 60 mph?

Jobst,

I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more than 20
years ago.

http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg

As you can see, no drafting.

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 1:31:56 AM9/19/07

to

Carl Sundquist writes:

>> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a
>> bicycle at over 60 mph?

> I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more
> than 20 years ago.

> http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg

> As you can see, no drafting.

As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why
there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see
any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt
flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this
thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq.

Jobst Brandt

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 1:36:16 AM9/19/07

to

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:50:44 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net>
wrote:

Dear Carl,

That clip goes by too fast for me to be sure . . .

But the 55 mph national speed limit wasn't raised to 65 mph, even for
rural state highways, until 1987, so you couldn't have been going even
56 mph twenty years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#1987_and_1988_.E2.80.94_65_mph_limit

More seriously, I see a 10:11:xx on the screen, but I'm guessing that
it's just the time-of-day. What kind of run-up did it take you to get
up that speed?

Cheers,

A much slower Carl

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 1:48:16 AM9/19/07

to

Dear Jobst,

If Carl Sundquist's wheels had spokes, then they were turning in the
relatively still air inside the fairing--you know, like the exposed
spokes on land speed record bikes.

And spokes were presumably on the wheels in the 1965 roller races to
which I linked, where regional contests produced an _average_ speed of
53.6 mph from a standing start over 1,000 meters:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html

Unlike land speed records, as I pointed out, those races are limited
to gearing no higher than the equivalent of 53x15:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html

I suspect that Carl Sundquist used the equivalent of something much
higher than 53x15 with his probably smaller-than-700c wheels in that
video.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 2:03:22 AM9/19/07

to

We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked
wheels inside his fairing back then.

But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna
Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing:

http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm

Apart from improving my character, pointing out my potential mistake
doesn't really matter--those faired recumbents are doing over 64 and
over 80 mph with _no_ draft to assist them.

Reducing the drag with wheel covers in the relatively still air behind
a drafting shield is not going to have the effect of the drafting
shield itself.

We don't see anyone trying to set land speed records by forgoing the
pacer and putting covers on their wheels.

It's the argument a fortiori. If a faired recumbent rider pedalling
_against_ the wind can break 80 mph, then it's illogical to argue that
a rider on a bicycle with similar gearing can't be pedalling at 60 mph
_behind_ a pacer.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 2:26:36 AM9/19/07

to

Here's a recent roller race at a charity event:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html

Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin
Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph.

Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious
event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers, since
many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off (like
Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but
apparently fell off in the finals).

Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These
riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a
national championship at all costs.

The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter qualifying
round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ of 66.93 mph.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ron Ruff

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 2:32:48 AM9/19/07

to

On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large
> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable.

But how large is large? On typical rollers the rolling resistance of
tires is multiplied by 4-5 times, so this is certainly not comparable
to land speed records. How fast could you go if the rollers were twice
as big as the wheels? Spoke windage on a stationary bike is quite low
(people with powermeters have measured it).

> Such an
> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be
> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and
> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the
> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our
> everyday car's maximum speed.

That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they
actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would
be so turbulent that it would knock them over.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 3:04:43 AM9/19/07

to

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:32:48 -0700, Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

Dear Ron,

In any case, ordinary roller races for charity, where riders fall off,
_average_ over 60 mph from a standing start:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html

Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin
Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph.

The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter qualifying

round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ of 66.93 mph.

The charity races may have used higher gearing (no details), but
official U.S. roller races limit gearing to no higher than 53x15:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ben C

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 3:35:12 AM9/19/07

to

On 2007-09-19, carl...@comcast.net <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:03:22 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:

[...]

> Here's a recent roller race at a charity event:
>
> http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html
>
> Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin
> Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph.
>
> Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious
> event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers, since
> many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off (like
> Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but
> apparently fell off in the finals).
>
> Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These
> riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a
> national championship at all costs.

They were also probably putting their normal road bikes with normal road
gearing onto the rollers, effectively making this a test of who could do
the highest cadence.

Ben C

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 3:41:04 AM9/19/07

to

On 2007-09-19, Ron Ruff <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[...]

>> Such an
>> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be
>> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and
>> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the
>> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our
>> everyday car's maximum speed.
>
> That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they
> actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would
> be so turbulent that it would knock them over.

That's an excellent point.

petey...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 3:55:36 AM9/19/07

to

On Sep 19, 8:03 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:48:16 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

Even standard safety bicycles can do over 45 mph:

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUxMjc

although likely with disc wheels.

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 9:35:46 AM9/19/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

> Here's a recent roller race at a charity event:

http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html

> Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin
> Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph.

> Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious
> event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers,
> since many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off
> (like Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but
> apparently fell off in the finals).

> Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These
> riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a
> national championship at all costs.

> The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter
> qualifying round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_
> of 66.93 mph.

Just to put that into perspective, aerodynamic drag increases with the
cube of velocity. Therefore, at 166.7mph power is 15.45 times the
power produced by the roller rider at 66.93mph using the same wheels.

Jobst Brandt

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 2:14:03 PM9/19/07

to

Dear Ron & Ben,

Here's some support for Jobst's position, which came in a roundabout
way.

An email this morning mentioned:

"FWIW, I remember reading about Fast Freddie Markham setting the land
speed record (must have been 20-25 years ago), and describing the
effect of the slipstream pushing him forward into the roller
(conveniently placed there to provide a safe place for his front wheel
to slam into the race car). He talked about having to ride the brakes
at times (and of learning that the centrifugal forces at the speed he
was traveling were enough to depress his Schraeder valve and deflate
one of his tires)."

I almost posted it without checking, but I wondered why Rompelberg's
list of bicycle land speed records at the bottom of this page didn't
mention Markham:

http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp

Maybe Rompelberg was still feuding with Markham over a 0.001 mph
disagreement twenty years ago? Or maybe Rompelberg got caught trying
to draft behind Markham's sister and crashing into her at a victory
party?

Luckily, I checked and found that there's a much simpler and sadly
less lurid explantion for why Rompleberg doesn't mention Markham, as
most of you already remembered.

Freddie Markham is a conscientious objector in the speed wars and a
notorious draft-evader. Freddie sets much lower unassisted bicycle
speed records in faired recumbents. He wouldn't know a pace vehicle if
he bumped into the back of one.

So my correspondent probably just mixed Freddie up with some other
rider from long ago. But it still sounds like some rider out there
wrote an account that supports Jobst's claims, so I thought that I
ought to mention it.

There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle land
speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all sorts of
details that would settle the question, but unfortunately it's out of
print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so it will be a
few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone else can find
the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 3:22:04 PM9/19/07

to

For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes
against Jobst's theory:

"John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a 152.2
Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near
Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a 500
Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding a
large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco Streamliner.
The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag
he is pedaling against to near nothing."

Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't
find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking in
order to slow down.

Supposedly they'll try to set a new record in October.

" . . . John Hennessey of Hennessey Performance the well-known “Speed”
specialist, will provide the specialized 200+ mile per hour Dodge
truck that will pace the land speed attempt."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmpxJWAJbFM

Let us hope that the Dodge pace truck will have large tires, raised
suspension, tinted windows, and a black paint job.

:)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 4:13:59 PM9/19/07

to

On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

[snip]

This is just a convenient place to tack this post.

Here's a video of Dave Le Grys setting a land speed record of 110 mph
in 1986 behind a pace car on the M4, using the double reduction gear
that he designed (visible right at the start):

You can see the towing rig as he sets off, and both front and rear
brake levers are visible at about 0:15 as the towing rig slackens.

His black gloved hands are clearly not on either brake lever at this
point.

At about 0:35, he seems to be moving off to the outside of the turn,
no longer directly behind the car. It's blurrier but more obvious at
about 0:50.

It never occurred to me that anyone would be doing land speed record
attempts on a highway with what looks like traffic halted in the
oncoming lane around the curve at 0:38, but I suppose that salt flats
are hard to find in the UK.

Here's a Howard video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py94okBKDU0&mode=related&search=

At 0:52, you can see his hands, though not well. They don't seem to be
on any brake lever, and presumably he's using his right to control the
pace car throttle remotely, so any braking must come from his legs.

For lagniappe, here's a faintly related but very nice 7 minute video
of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle Mountain, with lots of odd
details:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search=

At 1:30, it's mentioned that the kevlar is for crashing because the
carbon fiber--oops, that's another thread.

The comments about where half the wind drag is created are very
interesting.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 5:00:19 PM9/19/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

> There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle
> land speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all
> sorts of details that would settle the question, but unfortunately
> it's out of print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so
> it will be a few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone
> else can find the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful.

This might be faster:

http://tinyurl.com/2gguhd

Jobst Brandt

Ben C

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 5:06:10 PM9/19/07

to

On 2007-09-19, carl...@comcast.net <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is just a convenient place to tack this post.
>
> Here's a video of Dave Le Grys setting a land speed record of 110 mph
> in 1986 behind a pace car on the M4, using the double reduction gear
> that he designed (visible right at the start):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmpxJWAJbFM
>
> You can see the towing rig as he sets off, and both front and rear
> brake levers are visible at about 0:15 as the towing rig slackens.
>
> His black gloved hands are clearly not on either brake lever at this
> point.
>
> At about 0:35, he seems to be moving off to the outside of the turn,
> no longer directly behind the car. It's blurrier but more obvious at
> about 0:50.
>
> It never occurred to me that anyone would be doing land speed record
> attempts on a highway with what looks like traffic halted in the
> oncoming lane around the curve at 0:38, but I suppose that salt flats
> are hard to find in the UK.

So were closed roads back then, which is why I think this might have
been done just after the M42 (it's the M42, not the M4) was built but
before it had opened.

In case your knowledge of British motorway history needs refreshing,
this link shows that this road was being built at around that time:

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m42/timeline.shtml

The halted traffic may be the cars of people who've come to watch.

It never used to be possible to close roads in Britain without getting
special permission from the Queen or something, but now they do it all
the time, for weeks at a time, for such frivolities as installing speed
humps. I suspect Bliar slipped some new clause in somewhere on an
"anti-terror" pretext. But in 1986 the only places you could have
attempted something like this would have been on private land or on a
bit of motorway that hadn't been sanctified yet.

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 5:17:47 PM9/19/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes
> against Jobst's theory:

> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a
> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near
> Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a
> 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding
> a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco
> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the
> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing."

> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't
> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking
> in order to slow down.

If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic
modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near
nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily interpreted
to various conclusions.

> Supposedly they'll try to set a new record in October.

> "...John Hennessey of Hennessey Performance the well-known ?Speed?

> specialist, will provide the specialized 200+ mile per hour Dodge
> truck that will pace the land speed attempt."

http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg

Consider the gearing which will be such that he can safely spin the
pedals at that speed. Nothing else matters in the bicycle mechanical
department. The big problem is to generate a vortex that is stable
enough to not thrown the rider. As for driving the car, the "gas
pedal" will have to be on the bicycle.

Towing bicycle and rider to speed before the measured speed trap is
also a must, no one having the power to accelerate bicycle and rider
on the course to that speed even in a theoretical vacuum available.

> Let us hope that the Dodge pace truck will have large tires, raised
> suspension, tinted windows, and a black paint job.

Dodge lost the contract and it went to Chevy, so this will be the pace
vehicle:

Jobst Brandt

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 8:51:32 PM9/19/07

to

On 19 Sep 2007 21:17:47 GMT, jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes
>> against Jobst's theory:
>
>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a
>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near
>> Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a
>> 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding
>> a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco
>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the
>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing."
>
> http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html
>
>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't
>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking
>> in order to slow down.
>
>If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic
>modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near
>nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily interpreted
>to various conclusions.

[snip]

Dear Jobst,

If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it
agrees with you, it disagrees with you:

"The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag
he is pedaling against to near nothing."

Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the

aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing.

You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly
negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough to
accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against
rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain with
footrests would make no difference.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 9:03:02 PM9/19/07

to

Dear Jobst,

Unfortunately, the used book market varies considerably.

Notice that the copy being mailed to me from South Sea in New Zealand
is still listed on today AbeBooksat 7pm MST.

Yesterday, I got the cheapest copy that I could and got confirmation
that it was mine.

Today, there are a couple of copies that are about as cheap and maybe
faster.

If you use www.bookfinder.com, you'll see even more copies, since it
incorporates AbeBooks listings, is usually more up to date, and is
more reliable about total price with shipping, which can be impressive
from Australia and New Zealand.

Yesterday, I got the one that was cheapest total by almost $20.

Today I might do better.

But it beats hell out of the old pre-internet market, where I had to
drive to places or call long distance or pay students a thousand miles
away $100 to photocopy a novel that I later picked up for $5.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 9:11:52 PM9/19/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

>>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that
>>> goes against Jobst's theory:

>>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a
>>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats
>>> near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake
>>> of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by
>>> adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco
>>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the
>>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing."

http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm

>>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't
>>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or
>>> braking in order to slow down.

>> If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic
>> modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near
>> nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily
>> interpreted to various conclusions.

> If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it

> agrees with you, it disagrees with you:

> "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag
> he is pedaling against to near nothing."

"near nothing" is not a scaler quantity and it is offered by the
promoter. I don't think it is revealing in the least.

> Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the
> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing.

> You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly
> negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough
> to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against
> rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain
> with footrests would make no difference.

I didn't say that. I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net
force on the rider, enough to propel th bicycle. This is obviously
not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher
speeds. For this reason and acceleration effort, the riders in these
events are towed to near the record speed they want to achieve.
Besides, having only one gear, it would not suffice at lower speeds.

Jobst Brandt

carl...@comcast.net

unread,

Sep 19, 2007, 10:41:11 PM9/19/07

to

Dear Jobst,

"This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes
effective at higher speeds."

So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his
pedalling did nothing at 60 mph?

What's the next step up, 70 mph or 120 mph?

I think that anyone can read the sentence that you're fuzzing up, just
as anyone can read your previous posts.

Here's that sentence again from _another_ web site:

"The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag
he is pedaling against to near nothing."

It looks as if the McCall site is repeating the same sentence as the
site about John Howard. No matter what you say, it doesn't sound as if
either site thinks that the bike is propelled by the drag.

I think that anyone will agree with my reading of that sentence and
with my description of your claims up to this point.

My question is still unanswered: what _evidence_ do you have to
support your claim?

I'm been willing to be convinced, but insisting that McCall's web site
agrees with you when it plainly doesn't is no evidence.

Why don't you email the McCall group, explain that they don't need a
chain, point out that the physical training is waste of time, and tell
us what their reply is?

Tom Ritchey is part of the McCall team. He and Dr. Eric Heiden--a
professor of orthopedic surgery, an Olympic skating medalist, and a
national bicycling champion--would presumably appreciate your insight
and explanation that they're just fooling themselves.

Here's the McCall site's home page with contact info:

http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/default.asp

Or you could email Fred Rompelberg and explain that he didn't need to
pedal at 167 mph Here's his contact info:

Or you could email John Howard and let him know that he could have
coasted forever at 152 mph:

http://www.multisports.com/johnh.html

Or you could email Dr. Allan Abbott, a dean of Family Medicine at
USC's Keck Medical School, and tell him that he was faking it at 140
mph:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/util/directories/faculty/profile.php?PersonIs_ID=1

If you're right, they may write back and admit what's really going on.

If they don't, you can always insist that they're frauds.

You seem to have raised your minimum to 60 mph, so let's find out how
high you'll go.

Is the windshield on the back of the motorcycle in the picture below
producing so much aerodynamic propulsion for Geroges Pailliard that he
didn't need a chain on his bicycle to reach 85.4 mph?

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=929&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2

Pailliard's motorcycle-paced record is listed here:

http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp

Did Alfred LeTourneur just coast up to 109 mph behind this small car
windscreen in 1941?

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures;jsessionid=dy4cwup2j3.tiger_s?p=1140&w=4&n=1&c=2&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0

http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1141&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst....@stanfordalumni.org

unread,

Sep 20, 2007, 12:17:40 AM9/20/07

to

Carl Fogel writes:

http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm

> "This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes
> effective at higher speeds."

> So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his
> pedalling did nothing at 60 mph?

Stop putting words into what I wrote! Murphy had a completely
different enclosure. You could hardly see him from the side. I'm
talking about the over 100 mph attempts.

> What's the next step up, 70 mph or 120 mph?

> I think that anyone can read the sentence that you're fuzzing up, just
> as anyone can read your previous posts.

That's true if you move the goal posts. The discussion was about John
Howard's equipment and you brought in all these others and continue to
mix and match as you please.

> Here's that sentence again from _another_ web site:

> "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag
> he is pedaling against to near nothing."

So what does the word "wind" mean in that sentence? He is entirely
within the envelop of the windscreen and all he gets is eddies that
close ever farther behind as speed increases. You should wonder how
the position of the bumper bar is chosen to keep him from getting to
far forward and losing vortex thrust. This whole thing is carefully
designed for the task.

> It looks as if the McCall site is repeating the same sentence as the
> site about John Howard. No matter what you say, it doesn't sound as
> if either site thinks that the bike is propelled by the drag.

"thinks"? You mean neither is saying that rider propulsion has any
effect on bicycle speed.

> I think that anyone will agree with my reading of that sentence and
> with my description of your claims up to this point.

> My question is still unanswered: what _evidence_ do you have to
> support your claim?

> I'm been willing to be convinced, but insisting that McCall's web
> site agrees with you when it plainly doesn't is no evidence.

I didn't insist on that. You are insisting on it. I'm merely saying
that the promoters are not interested in defrocking the event and can
make statements that are true but depend on what you want to believe
the meaning is.

> Why don't you email the McCall group, explain that they don't need a
> chain, point out that the physical training is waste of time, and
> tell us what their reply is?

That's your homework not mine. I got my information while talking to
the Howard team at InterBike years ago where the bicycle was
displayed.

> Tom Ritchey is part of the McCall team. He and Dr. Eric Heiden--a
> professor of orthopedic surgery, an Olympic skating medalist, and a
> national bicycling champion--would presumably appreciate your
> insight and explanation that they're just fooling themselves.

I doubt they believe as you do about these record runs.

> Here's the McCall site's home page with contact info: