The Design and Development of the LotusSport Pursuit Bicycle

Abstract

Aerodynamic drag constitutes over 96 per cent of the overall resistance to motion for a typical rider and bicycle combination. Although the rider of a typical track pursuit bicycle constitutes approximately two-thirds of the overall aerodynamic drag, the bicycle itseEf still contributes one-third. Any reduction in the drag generated by the bicyclr can therefore have a signijicant effect on the maximum attainable speed for a given power input, and thus the time to cover a given race distance. At the same time it is important to optimize the riding position so as to minimize both the rider drag and any interference effects between the rider and bicycle. Cross-wind conditions are also of vital importance to cyclists. For most conventional tubular framed bicycles any wind on a velodrome will result in signijicantly slower times due to the increased drag. For a properly designed monocoque aero bicycle, however, a cross-wind can mean faster times on a velodrome due to a Sail' efect being generated. The Lotussport monocoque pursuit cycle has been designed and developed to gain maximum beneft from aerodynamic drag reduction and sail effects. I t was produced for, and used at, the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games where it was ridden to the gold medal in the 4000 metre individual pursuit event.NOTATION drag area (coefficient of combined rider and bicycle drag multiplied by the combined rider and bicycle frontal area) drag force power air density time speed distance distance between the centre of pressure and the reference centre (mid-wheelbase) (positive forward, negative rearward) distance between the centre of gravity and the reference centre (mid-wheelbase) (positive forward, negative rearward) DO6092 Q IMechE 1993

On-site cycling drag analysis with the Ring of Fire

“…A clear distinction in upright vs. time-trial ensemble average drag area is found for both experiments, with the upright posture yielding higher drag area by about 20-35% with respect to the time-trial posture. Kyle (1991), 2 Hill (1993), 3 Broker andKyle (1995), 4 Zdravkovic et al (1996), 5 Martin et al (1998), 6 Padilla et al (2000, 7 Jeukendrup and Martin (2001), 8 Gibertini and Grassi (2008), 9 Garcia-Lopez et al 2008 Grappe et al (1997), 24 Candau et al (1999), 25 Peterman et al (2015), 26 Nonweiler (1958, 27 Kyle and Burke (1984), 28 Fintelman et al 2014, 29 Capelli et al (1993), 30 de Groot et al (1995, 31 Lim et al (2011)…”