My previous record was 54:42 via Colman Park – that comes to an average of 18.5 mph for the route.
This morning was pretty still, maybe a 2-4mph southwesterly wind. So if anything I had a tailwind.
It was rainy and a little bit cold so I was starting out with a little bit of an intent for speed – but record breaking times and speed wasn’t on my mind until I found myself bombing down airport way at about 24 mph and feeling good. Incidentally that mile stretch and some of Rainier is where I get the most benefit of any tailwind – so it can be a false sense of “power”.
Anyway, that makes it about 3 miles into my trip that I started to drop some serious coin into my pay-as-you-go slot – I wasn’t watching my average speed so I don’t know where that was but…oh yeah…one more thing.
This morning I re-calibrated my cyclo-computer after some email discussions with ElephantShirtTom and BopOp – it rolled out to 2108mm and before I had it set on 2090. Incidentally this means that I should be right on the money and indeed, my cyclocomputer reads a total distance of 16.76 miles for my route and gmap-pedometer confirms it at 16.77. That’s close enough. 🙂
One other good thing is that I have a new cyclocomputer after my latest one crapped out and stopped calculating speed/time/mileage anytime I got over about 24-26 mph. This one is wireless and there is almost NO delay when I stop – the speed goes immediately to 0.0 mph and the clock stops ticking within 1 second. I liiiiike.
Anyway, back to the ride. I have recently focussed more energy on climbing because of my pending ride up Village Park Road for the LiveStrong Challenge (Still time to donate!) and a Ride Around Mt Rainier in One Day (RAMROD) in late July. I think if I can go 10% faster up hills and “recover” on the flats overall I can get “there” faster. So I did that this morning as best I could and I recall one hill, where I tend to go 14mph I was doing 19mph and another where I tend to do 8mph I was doing 10.5mph. Recovering on the flats worked well at about 22-23mph with any slight downhills at 24mph.
ANYHOO….after all that open road I hit The Great Slowdown in Seattle – stop lights. I was rolling up to stop lights quickly (when I could) and stopping fully (not slowing down real gradually) so that my average speed would stay high and I could take advantage of my quick-stop cyclocomputer. I recovered from the climb (over into Seattle from the lake) on two or three lights through town and then hammered it hard to stay with the traffic and make all the timed lights on Alaskan Way. All of the traffic for the biggest cruise ship in the world didn’t help much near the office but I skirted it pretty well.
blief 
Nice time! I did notice the delay on your old cyclecomputer, but good enough for me 🙂 After my calibration my numbers have changed slightly and seem to be correct when compared to googlemaps.
ElephantShirtTom.
LikeLike
What brand and model is your new speedometer? My CatEye V2c has a 2 second delay and it’s frustrating.
LikeLike
Good going Lief! Grandma and I are proud of your accomplishments. (We have injected some donation into your pledge for the LiveStrong event.)
Although I am a hypocrite for saying this — being a Honda man — don’t you think a rear-wheel drive ‘bent might allow better efficiency (i.e., better speed, especially up-hill)? You must have a significant amount of slip in your front drive wheel when putting out maximum horsepower going up hills.
Signed, Grandpa (BSME ’50)
LikeLike
My cyclocomputer, I think, the micro wireless one
CC-MC100W
Jesse at GHY sold it to me so you could confirm with him if you want.
LikeLike
Grandpa,
loss of efficiency is a very touchy subject…for Cruzbike. Not so touchy with me.
There are many factors to be considered:
1) wheel slip
2) ratio of gears
3) torque smoothing (pedalling technique)
4) overall power output
5) weight distribution
6) other muscles seemingly unrelated to pedalling
some of these overlap each other but i think I can address your concern, the superior design considerations of the FWD moving bottom bracket (MBB) cruzbike, and personal technique in very few sentences. Let’s see.
Yes, I can and do generate deal-killing wheel slip on very steep hills if I don’t gear down, lean forward and smooth out my power strokes.
One thing is pretty clear though, regardless of the bike, maximum horsepower is only achievable for extremely short distances and for efficiencies sake it pays to gear down and spin (the cranks).
For the hills I am climbing right now (village park drive) I have tested it twice now and found I require a lot of focus on my pedal stroke to overcome wheel slip because I don’t have a low enough gear. The Silvio is designed to utilize regular upright road-bike components such that on these steepest hills it is (especially for my level of fitness and technique) over-geared.
If I had one lower cog or one lower chainring I think I could climb it with little attention to the finer points.
To do that I would need to invest in some different equipment (derailer, cassette or chainring) and generally experiment with fitment issues.
Restricting this examination to good climbing RWD recumbents (high end bachettas, lightning p-38, and carbents), on balance, I prefer to deal with the potential for wheelslip and fitment rather than deal with
1) heel strike when turning the front wheel
2) potential for frame flex in the crank boom (also innefficient but probably not as big of a deal in these high-end bikes)
3) chain management
4) all the custom parts (idlers, steering apparatus, wheels sometimes)
5) and the lack of the ability to engage upper body and core muscles in the climb.
So these few sentences turned into a diatribe. But the least obvious benefit of the FWD MBB design is the strength in the front triangle/tetrahedron that allows me to almost literally stand up on the pedals. As long as I can smooth my power stroke, by also pulling on the “upstroke” via my clipped in pedals, I can utilize a lot more muscle groups than a rear wheel drive design which allows other muscle groups to rest. Spreading the load over the course of a longer ride.
On balance, I like the tradeoffs about as much as I dislike typing long notes on my iPhone, in QWERTY no less!
Talk about inneficient. Ugh.
On retrospection, I guess the fact I have spent so much time and effort on this proves it is a touchy, fanboy-ish subject for me too. 🙂
LikeLike
Whew!! Teach me to bring up a touchy subject with an afficianado! I would have been better to have criticized your political leanings, methinks!!
Seriously, the inefficiency I was talking about is/was the slippage — not even out-and-out spinning — of the drive wheel. All drive wheels slip a little bit as long as they are “driving”. I was just opining that a rear-wheel drive might have less slip due to more weight on it. How much more effective your posture/positioning is on the Cruzbike layout is a whole different subject which you obviously feel is much better than any rear-wheel drive of which you are aware (or can afford!). Actually, I assumed that a “simple” rearrangement could yield a rear-wheel drive Cruzbike without affecting the front triangle structure — yeah, you would probably be sitting back about two feet further aft.
And the dang thing wouldn’t fit on those racks on the Lite Rail! You would really have a “non-normal” bike!! ;<}
LikeLike
Oh yea?? Well…well…I got nothing. Nicely done! :))
LikeLike