Can't wait to see where this is going...
Yeah, me too, and I proposed it!
Here's the thing...
When people (on the 'Net, so by definition it must be true, right?) talk about speed and bicycles with regard to geometry, handling, and lighting, they often seem to divide their discussions into "high-speed" and "low-speed", then postulate their theories, relate their data, and present their findings from there.
Over and over, this same phrase or term comes up when discussing bikes.
Unfortunately, people rarely
quantify "high-speed" with a
number. Drives me nuts, 'cos without numbers, it makes their data and conclusions "slippery" and almost impossible to replicate except in general terms. One person's "high-speed" is another person's "tootling along".
Writing and asking has gotten me nowhere.
I -- of course! -- want to quantify my data and relate it to what I've read, so I am trying to determine what "high-speed" is
by contemporary cycling convention. What does it mean
today? For example, I recently read some ad copy for a carbon bike that touted its "unsurpassed high-speed handling". Well, at what speeds? Sherpa did really well screaming down Green Hill yesterday loaded to the guards, and he's a
touring bike. The tandem does really well at just over 62mph/100kph (and maybe more, but the traffic light at the bottom of the hill turned red and put an end to the fun. My then-86-year-old stoker, otherwise known as "Dad", was up for more and waving me onward until the light changed). I'd call that "high-speed". Tout-Terrain seem to think "high-speed" lives somewhere around 18-20mph/29-32kph. In his headlight comparisons, Peter White seems to think "high-speed" is at or over 30mph/48kph.
The little I've found where numbers are tossed about seems to indicate 30mph/48kph is the point at which a bicycle (and rider atop it, hopefully) definitively enters "high speed". If I can get some consensus on that, I can go
somewhere in relating my shimmy data to others' and the lighting data as well.
None of this would matter much to me if my background weren't in research design and methodology. I did the pioneering work in a particular sub-field of the discipline, and there really is value in getting things nailed down. Otherwise, everything is pretty much a shot in the dark. Because I occasionally carry unusually heavy loads on very poor - or no! -- roads, I am finding some interesting things about bicycle handling I haven't seen reported elsewhere. I think the weight and road surfaces amplify certain handling characteristics and make them more clear and apparent than they would be otherwise. Some of thesr characteristics hold constant regardless of speed, and some are speed-dependent.
Apart from the rider (a huge variable right there), a lot of factors determine a "good-handling" bicycle and its suitability for a given purpose and intended use/speed range. A bike may handle well at any speed or with any use, or only within a range of speeds and conditions that may be unfortunately narrow. Rider A may never have a problem because his speed tops-out at 25mph/40kph and life is Good until the day he braves a downhill at 35mph/56kph and the wheels fall off, so to speak. Rider B may have a bicycle that rides on rails at 30-40mph/48-64kph, but curses the thing when it wanders up the drive to the shed and nearly throws him into the weeds.
I suppose it is a bit like two people who each buy the same computer. One keeps it original, uses it only for light tasks, and thinks its a speed demon. The other edits huge video files or does 3-D renders and compares its performance to watching paint dry. In this case, performance benchmarks get you in the game, but they don't guarantee equivalent experiences or performance if the use differs.
I suspect I have asked an Imponderable, but that "high-speed" term must have some basis in factual data. I'd sure like to find it and it would sure be nice if there was some comparability to make reasonable comparisons. For science! For physics!
Best and thanks,
Dan. (who thinks Stuart has a great idea for a poll...)
