Do you use an fairing or partial fairing on your ebike, emoped or BSM?

[tigcross]

Chalo, I'd like to know. What was it? did some recumbent rider run over your puppy as a child?

Yay! Special techniques to maybe catch up to the manners of a totally normal bike! I guess everybody was wrong for the last century plus.

My "special technique" is nothing new, just simple physics. The 1% of the time that I need fast handling I lift my back away from the seat, and the rest of the time I'm far more comfortable than I would be on an upright bike.

It is not a secret that the UCI banned Recumbent bikes in 1934 because they were too fast. Your statement above is just flat out wrong. You're pretty obstinate about this, but whenever you are confronted by a fact that puts your point of view in question you seem to ignore it.

Now don't get me wrong, I accept that many past recumbent designs have had unreasonable compromises, but if I have a main point here, it is that electrification allows the recumbent bike designer to solve those problems and create a truly useful vehicle. I think it's time for you to stop dredging up historical shortcomings of the recumbent position and accept that times change and problems can be solved.

My bike can carry 120 litres of cargo, has a 200 kilometer range, and is safe and comfortable on the side of our highways here in BC. These features make it a genuine car replacement, especially over great distances. My longest ride has been 250 km, and at the end I stepped off of the bike feeling no discomfort. That would not have been possible on an upright bike.

 

[BalorNG]

All the while you seem to not mind risking lives of *others* it seems.

I'd much prefer being the dork, thank you.

The physics only cares about mass and momentum.

So if a self described "dork" crashes because the vehicle lacks control by design is that different than someone breaking Natural Law by poor riding ability?

In other words if you HAVE TALENT you should be more capable of not causing harm.

And let's be clear on that too... one should avoid "causing harm to self and others".

Self harm is another violation of Natural Law. Pain is okay because it is an illusion, but harm is material.

If you banned pain the entire Tour De France would need to be shut down because it is a long "Painfest".

I have ridden at minimum 10,000 miles on my Class 3 ebike and even drifted the tires on it and had no crashes.

Just because you wobble around and "feel" you are Virtue Signaling in an unusual way does not mean the laws of physics or skill levels are in your favor.

"Natural law"? You mean gravity or conservation of mass? If i jump out from 12th floor all will be according to Natural Law, but I'm not actually *keen* to die, and this is why I'm researching handling and stable configurations.
Still, I find living my life the way *I* find interesting more important. Life, by itself, is absolutely worthless, like an empty chest. What we make of it matters - a chest full of gold is priceless, but a chest full of toxic waste bears discarding as quick as possible.

And regarding 'harm to others' - I've meant your other threads... but that's, frankly, offtopic.

 

[BalorNG]

Chalo, I'd like to know. What was it? did some recumbent rider run over your puppy as a child?

I can absolutely understand him. I mean, I'm a randonner, I do not find any sort of competitions inherently rewarding and like going very long distances, but love comfort (for a given meaning of 'comfort' - I guess 'acute unbearable pain' is where I draw the line)- hence, I'd make an absolutely perfect 'bent advocate'.

Unfortunately, I tend to mostly agree with Chalo - they are a bunch of compromises that just barely make it above slow-ish upright bikes for solo riding on flat terrain in ultra distances AND that only after I've spend years experimenting.
Some of them are indeed faster than 'upright bikes', but those are less, much less practical than even TT bikes - that are, if you really think about it, are 'prone recumbents' with low bottom bracket, with no climbing difficulties and much less power output penalty.

Adding a motor changes things... but not really, in the long run.
What you have personally 'rediscovered' is a, basically, FF motorcycle.
There are enough proponents of those, but they are about as niche in moto circles as recumbents in velo circles, and I bet for same reasons... mostly 'value mismatch' and 'Safe Disk Dancing' above is a very good illustration of a typical mindset I dareday.

After all, if you want a truly *practical* vehicle, you buy a car, end of story.
A motorcycle is also a 'special needs vehicle' - because it gives something OTHER than just getting from point A to B - certainly feeling, emotions, a sense of belonging in a particular tribe mostly - just like a bicycle, or a snowboard, or paraplane.

I find 'belonging in a tribe' a pretty alien concept (yup, dork), but I also have certain emotional demands that are pretty tough to meet, but it makes it an even better challenge to overcome, but you *must* be ok with the concept that you ride a 'special needs vehicle' and catering to persons with 'special needs' as you build them - or your should become a used car salesman instead.

Values, values, values. *shrugs*

 

[donn]

It is not a secret that the UCI banned Recumbent bikes in 1934 because they were too fast.

I generally agree with the rest of what you had to say there, naturally, but whether the actual cause behind that was that they were too fast, or for other reasons (I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting recumbents elbow to elbow with other bicyclists in a mass race start), I don't think it's any more relevant to the general bicycling experience, than all the "moto GP" stuff we've been seeing here recently (whatever "moto GP" is.) For most people, I'd be surprised if a recumbent would be perceptibly faster overall - maybe a bit on the down hills, but more than compensated on the uphills. There certainly are fast riders on recumbents, but it's the rider more than the machine.

Now, as you point out, the advent of a practical electric motor changes that picture a lot, inasmuch as there's no reason the bicycle can't go as fast as you want it to go. So the aerodynamic factor becomes more significant, for battery capacity anyway.

 

[calab]

Chalo makes sense to me for the most part including selfish drivers except for some of his other anti-i.c.e. and anti-societal views. Some people are open minded and want to learn more and willing to have their minds changed by the action of researching more to confirm his standpoints or just think things through in a rational manner and come to a common sense conclusion.

I personally would not want to be laying down a foot off the ground with a big neon flag 8 feet in the air.
I would not want to be horizontal 3-4 feet off the ground with my feet in front of me at the same level
Why would I want to be stuck with the terrain I can ride? any trike or what I just mentioned strikes out single track riding, field riding, slow riding with my foot constantly on the ground, pushing forward from a stand still, squeezing between parked cars or spaced parking curbs.

Everyone has their preferences.

 

[BalorNG]

Chalo makes sense to me for the most part including selfish drivers except for some of his other anti-i.c.e. and anti-societal views. Some people are open minded and want to learn more and willing to have their minds changed by the action of researching more to confirm his standpoints or just think things through in a rational manner and come to a common sense conclusion.

I personally would not want to be laying down a foot off the ground with a big neon flag 8 feet in the air.
I would not want to be horizontal 3-4 feet off the ground with my feet in front of me at the same level
Why would I want to be stuck with the terrain I can ride? any trike or what I just mentioned strikes out single track riding, field riding, slow riding with my foot constantly on the ground, pushing forward from a stand still, squeezing between parked cars or spaced parking curbs.

Everyone has their preferences.

If your sense of balance is going or gone, a trike allows your to continue cycling, and by entrenching yourself beforehand as part of an 'upright tribe', moving to it is going to be ever more painful or you'll simply abandon it instead, this frankly sucks.
And yea, trikes piloted by 'upright riders way out of their prime' is indeed a much greater target audience than weirdos out for something 'different' (about 1%, and most of them choose something else other than recumbent cycling - like, say, philosophy).
This is why trikes outsell two-wheeled bents 10 to 1, despite being much slower unless a velomobile (which IS an ultimate super bicycle, but comes with bunch of compromises of their own).
I understand that if I fish out something new and interesting in 'design space' - that would only be interesting to a bunch of similar weirdos, but I do not mind... once you truly realise (as in - internalize) that ALL values are ultimately an artefact of our model of reality and the fact that we share *some* of them is something wondrous, not the other way around, things do click into perspective.

 

[tigcross]

Adding a motor changes things... but not really, in the long run.
What you have personally 'rediscovered' is a, basically, FF motorcycle.
There are enough proponents of those, but they are about as niche in moto circles as recumbents in velo circles, and I bet for same reasons... mostly 'value mismatch' and 'Safe Disk Dancing' above is a very good illustration of a typical mindset I dareday.

After all, if you want a truly *practical* vehicle, you buy a car, end of story.
A motorcycle is also a 'special needs vehicle' - because it gives something OTHER than just getting from point A to B - certainly feeling, emotions, a sense of belonging in a particular tribe mostly - just like a bicycle, or a snowboard, or paraplane.

You're still clinging to old paradigms. An electric recumbent is not a FF motorbike. An Electric recumbent bicycle provides exercise and you never get stuck in traffic because of a bicycle's lane-filtering privileges. As I said before, recumbent designs of the past have allowed for a lot of compromises. Compromises which are unnecessary now that we have powerful electric hub motors.

 

[tigcross]

I personally would not want to be laying down a foot off the ground with a big neon flag 8 feet in the air.
I would not want to be horizontal 3-4 feet off the ground with my feet in front of me at the same level
Why would I want to be stuck with the terrain I can ride? any trike or what I just mentioned strikes out single track riding, field riding, slow riding with my foot constantly on the ground, pushing forward from a stand still, squeezing between parked cars or spaced parking curbs.

Again, old paradigms. The Electrom is neither a foot off the ground or 3-4 feet off the ground. The seat is at 19 inches (just an inch higher than your average chair seat) Yes, your feet are in front of you, but it's comfortable.

The Electrom is also quite good in narrow spots and off road, as it is not a trike. Have a look at the video below. Of course if off-road riding is your thing then an upright MTB is the way to go, but that doesn't mean that a properly designed recumbent cannot take the occasional trail.

Once again, my point is that you guys keep harping on old issues, but with electric assist we can design a bike/vehicle that solves the majority of the compromises inherent in a recumbent position while taking advantage of the geometry to incorporate weather protection, superior comfort, and better weight distribution.

I'm not a recumbent zealot, I've spent my life on upright mountain bikes, but when it came time to build an e-bike designed to replace a car, I could not ignore the advantages a recumbent position offered. To do continue to discount the recumbent position because of old biases seems rather short-sighted.

[youtube]ff450t0zj74[/youtube]

 

[BalorNG]

You're still clinging to old paradigms. An electric recumbent is not a FF motorbike. An Electric recumbent bicycle provides exercise and you never get stuck in traffic because of a bicycle's lane-filtering privileges. As I said before, recumbent designs of the past have allowed for a lot of compromises. Compromises which are unnecessary now that we have powerful electric hub motors.

Ok, an FF moped, true, true.
And I'm not clinging to them. Everybody else does. YOU try convincing them otherwise. Try reading blogs of people that had head start of being FF proponents for tens of years, for instance... makes Chalo seem like a bubbly teenage girl in comparison.

Repeating things with great conviction actually works great when it comes to values, even if they are false (one may say *especially* if they are false) - see Steve Jobs that also tried to force reality to his will and often succeeded (except when it came to cancer. Stubborn little buggers, those cancer cells, refuse to listen to either reason nor passionate speeches), so I wish you luck! Our values are pretty close, if not exactly aligned, so I find it easy to empathise.

A world of warning though: You do not need to cause a great shift in values to run a small, but successful business, but if your goal to convince people in general that recumbents are 'cool' and 'practical', you might as well start with 'Safe Disk Dancing', I bet it would be a good practice.

 

[Chalo]

It is not a secret that the UCI banned Recumbent bikes in 1934 because they were too fast.

Having ridden a number of 'bents, I think it's more accurate to say UCI banned them because they're unsafe for pack racing. Why they aren't allowed for solo time trials is not clear, but is probably just because they're awkward and awful and would reduce the appeal of the sport.

Anyway, most people don't ride anything like a UCI compliant racing bike, so that tired old excuse for recumbents' market failure is simply wrong. The reason more people don't buy and ride 'bents is because most folks who've tried them don't like them enough to tolerate their shortcomings. It has nothing at all to do with race sanctioning bodies.

 

[donn]

I understand that among young people it's becoming cool now again to smoke cigarettes. It isn't a good idea to take the things people do as a guide for oneself, on the theory that they're based on sound reasoning and experience.

 

[Warren]

Again, old paradigms.

Tig, save your breath. I have spent 35 years trying to convince upright riders of the wonders of recumbents. I have spent the last 15 years trying to convince ICE drivers of the wonders of electric drive. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Since 2017 I have been talking to guys at hotrod shows about our Bolt. There is a guy with an awesome purple Willys I see at every event. I tried everything to get him to drive our Bolt...to even sit in it! He looks like I asked him to have sex with a goat, and says. "I just don't believe in the technology."

https://youtu.be/ff450t0zj74

 

[tigcross]

Again, old paradigms.

Tig, save your breath. I have spent 35 years trying to convince upright riders of the wonders of recumbents.

Sadly it would appear that you are right. It's too bad though, my main argument is not that they are wrong about recumbents, but that they should re-asses the design possibilities when electric assist is incorporated.

 

[Warren]

they should re-asses the design possibilities when electric assist is incorporated.

Yup. Decades on my recumbents, which included century rides, timed hill climbs, and the bike portion of run/bike/run duathlons, in addition to joy riding, the only time I ever felt at a disadvantage was on grades over 10%. At that point, I just didn't have the horsepower to maintain the aero advantage that makes up for the slightly lower maximum power in the supine position. There are definitely guys who have enough to overcome that, even on the steepest climbs. For the rest of us, there are electric motors.

 

[calab]

Everyone has their preferences.

The Electrom

The video of the Electrom does not have a side profile to a get a feeling for its length or how high it is. The short thumbnail video had a glimpse which gives me enough clue its not for me to long. The trail the video shows is just your regular old multi use trail in the format of unmaintained. When I ride casual easy single track (2-5% of the time) with technical sections of off camber fall line with added roots and rocks (1-3% of the terrain I ride) then anything over the wheel base of a townie electra is to long, which is about 5" longer (typical bicycle cruiser) if you look at the bb to wheel. A good argument could be for some of the recumbents something close to this https://www.performercycles.com/recumbent-bikes/recumbent-bike-rear-suspension-oss/ looking more closely at the electrom thats what I thought the electrom was a bit long https://www.electrom.ca/ might be great for cross country riding but even within the city I can many problems. I can only see riding that on the highways going long distances.

If you had health issues then you ride whatever feels good whether its a hopped up lithium 5-10kw mobility scooter for mall cruising and pathway drag racing others from the old age home unit, full bent, semi bent, cruiser, elongated chopper, road, ape hanger handlebars, bmx.

Most old school people are set in their ways, they like to hear the rumble and shift the gears. Few get converted or even care the tesla plaid is the fastest excellerating vehicle ever made in stock form.

 

[Cowardlyduck]

Almost every recumbent owner I know (myself included) also has plenty of normal upright bikes as well. Just look at my profile pic of my LMX64 with it's 180mm travel that thing can bomb down almost any trail, but I still enjoy taking my recumbents off-road and push things to the limit (and beyond) regularly. That's why I recently converted/built a full suspension BikeE AT that can go down most fire trails and some single track. I take it slower than my LMX and avoid large drops/rocks I would otherwise not care about, but it works well and provides both a comfortable and interesting ride that is enjoyable.

Anyway, how did this thread turn into a debate about recumbent vs upright bikes...wasn't it about fairings?

Here's a question...does adding front fenders/mudguards help with aero at all? Would larger fenders that wrap around more of the tire improve the aero to any noticeable effect?
I partly ask because I may need new fenders for a few bikes and wondered if getting some with more 'wrap' would act as a partial fairing and improve things.

Cheers

 

[ebike4healthandfitness]

Here's a question...does adding front fenders/mudguards help with aero at all? Would larger fenders that wrap around more of the tire improve the aero to any noticeable effect?
I partly ask because I may need new fenders for a few bikes and wondered if getting some with more 'wrap' would act as a partial fairing and improve things.

Cheers

Yes, mudguards can help:

https://road.cc/content/tech-news/268203-mudguards-are-more-aero-study-shows-optimum-drag-reduction-achieved

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2019-01-5086/

2019-10-11

Effect of Fender Coverage Angle on the Aerodynamic Drag of a Bicycle 2019-01-5086

While riding cycles, cyclists usually experience an aerodynamic drag force. Over the years, there has been a global effort to reduce the aerodynamic drag of a cycle. Fenders affect the aerodynamic drag of a cycle to a large extent, and fender coverage has a pronounced effect on the same. In this article, various fender coverage angles, varying from 60° to 270°, were studied to predict the aerodynamic drag with the help of a validated CFD model in SolidWorks Flow Simulation. The model was based on the Favre-Averaged Navier-Stokes (FANS) equations solved using the k-ɛ model. It was predicted that aerodynamic drag coefficient reduced fender coverage angle up to 135°, and thereafter started increasing. Analyses were carried out at velocities of 6 m/s, 8 m/s and 10 m/s and the results were found to be similar, with a minimum aerodynamic drag coefficient at 135° occurring in all the cases under study. There was an observed optimum decrease in drag coefficient to the extent of 4.6%, 4.5% and 4.6% as compared to the bicycle without fenders for the 6 m/s, 8 m/s and 10 m/s cases, respectively.

 

[SafeDiscDancing]

Anyway, how did this thread turn into a debate about recumbent vs upright bikes...wasn't it about fairings?

Wow... this thread was really active today.

I might take the blame for "arousing" the recumbent rider to battle.

My argument is that it's NOT always just about pragmatic things like aerodynamic efficiency because some of us like the "sport" aspect of upright bike handling.

I look at your mountain bike and think "okay, this guy can ride, he can probably get 15 to 20 feet of distance on the jumps he hits and knows how to drift tires on a sweeping flat track style turn."

Your insights into the DIFFERENCES between the upright or recumbent are likely good to hear about.

Most of the recumbent people I have come into contact with are your typical mild mannered nerdy old white guys who were NEVER particularly skilled riders. My guess is the number of recumbent riders who had raced anything in the past (and won) is very low in the single digits of percentages.

Since you break that mold it does add balance to the discussion.

---------------------

My point is simple:

The fairings should be just to give "improvement" over the standard upright because when you want to do fun stuff on an ebike the handling matters a lot.

So my argument is that a "mixed" configuration of upright and aerodynamic is the better compromise.

And if you look at something like MotoGP racing that is really where the concept of a recumbent getting into that kind of rough and tumble battle is out of the question simply because the recumbent physics can't deal with the intensity.

 

[Cowardlyduck]

Well mostly true, although I don't get air like I once did.
I have a whole youtube channel dedicated to my off-road riding antics:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkGv5hl0qEIuqE91GCKuGw

No such thing for recumbent riding, mainly because it's boring in comparison since it's mostly on-road or cycle paths.
That being said...I do get occasional air on my recumbents (only a few feet at most)...it is just a whole lot more sketchy and usually hurts my butt when landing.

For me recumbents are about three main benefits over regular bikes, in no particular order;
-Comfort
-Efficiency (aka Range for an Ebike)
-Something different and unique

And in the spirit of this thread I would have to argue, the 'built-in' fairing of a recumbent riding position is definitely an advantage. Even without added fairings, the recumbent rider already has that advantage over a regular bike which is why it came up in the first place.

IMO adding a fairing to an upright bike is a bit like folding in the mirrors on a Hummer. Sure it might get you a few % more MPG, but that beast isn't built for efficiency, so why bother.
OTOH, adding fairings to a recumbent is more like tucking in behind a Semi in your Civic on the freeway. THAT will save you some real MPG!!!

As for the whole mixed riding, yeah I agree. If I had to pick one bike to keep it would not be a recumbent. For simple versatility of use I would have to stick with the upright EMTB as I wouldn't want to give up the hard core off-road riding I love so much.

And thanks ebike4healthandfitness! I had no idea fenders could help so much!
Makes me want to more carefully consider the size, position and coverage of them in future. Not just something to keep the mud off after all!

Cheers

 

[BalorNG]

It is not a secret that the UCI banned Recumbent bikes in 1934 because they were too fast.

Having ridden a number of 'bents, I think it's more accurate to say UCI banned them because they're unsafe for pack racing. Why they aren't allowed for solo time trials is not clear, but is probably just because they're awkward and awful and would reduce the appeal of the sport.

Anyway, most people don't ride anything like a UCI compliant racing bike, so that tired old excuse for recumbents' market failure is simply wrong. The reason more people don't buy and ride 'bents is because most folks who've tried them don't like them enough to tolerate their shortcomings. It has nothing at all to do with race sanctioning bodies.

Yup. Most certainly. But UCI did put a significant hamper on things - after all, downhill mountain bikes are also terrible grocery-getters, but it didn't prevent of people putting significant R&D into them because there is a racing discipline around them.

Some mid/lowracers are well, totally cool, at least to my eyes, that's for sure - like some of creations of Morciglio, Troytek, Zorckra... and the fact that they are terrible commuters would still make them good TT bikes, this is where unfaired recumbent formfactor can truly shine (partially because a lowracer with disk wheel is already 'splitter plate faired'). I think we may eventually see recumbents adopted in *TRI* - after all, most triathletes seem themselves as runners, not cyclists (at least most that I know), and shape and form would not really matter to them so long as it gets them though bike leg faster and save them strength for the run.

For 'general riding around'... why bother? An age-old formula of an upright cruiser with wide seat that is comfortable *enough* and fast enough - it gets you to places better than walking and that's all that is truly *needed*...

 

[BalorNG]

Again, old paradigms.

Tig, save your breath. I have spent 35 years trying to convince upright riders of the wonders of recumbents.

Sadly it would appear that you are right. It's too bad though, my main argument is not that they are wrong about recumbents, but that they should re-asses the design possibilities when electric assist is incorporated.

Well, this is a good point, but I think your bike is a bit of an overkill. Recumbents most certainly do have a considerable problem with low speed-stability, starting from a stop and climbing *in general*, at least those worthy of the name - but you do not need a moped-like power to overcome them.

I agree that your bike an interesting case of a long-range commuter/car replacement, but again - most people find 'smart cars' not comfortable/safe/fast/cool enough, and your bike is a few notches less comfortable/safe/fast and regarding cool... yea, *I* find your bike cool, and I your technical solutions are pretty smart and I think I'll emulate some of them (sincerest form of flattery, ehehe), but values people hold are not just 'part of their identity' - they ARE their identity and attemps to change them will always be met with great resistance by defencive mechanism of the psyche. *shrugs*

It is pretty good though that currently there is an increasing awareness of how *wasteful* lives we live are, and how much of a toll hypodynamia takes on our society, so 'velomobiles' might indeed get wider and wider appeal, and e-bikes are also very popular just because they are so damn convinient indeed (but your design lacks a huge chunk of that convenience by being, well, huge)... so again, I wish you luck, I really do. Things are changing, and changing fast - and best we can do is stick to our values and provide if not an shining example, than a horrible warning .

 

[BalorNG]

Anyway, how did this thread turn into a debate about recumbent vs upright bikes...wasn't it about fairings?

Wow... this thread was really active today.

I might take the blame for "arousing" the recumbent rider to battle.

My argument is that it's NOT always just about pragmatic things like aerodynamic efficiency because some of us like the "sport" aspect of upright bike handling.

I look at your mountain bike and think "okay, this guy can ride, he can probably get 15 to 20 feet of distance on the jumps he hits and knows how to drift tires on a sweeping flat track style turn."

Your insights into the DIFFERENCES between the upright or recumbent are likely good to hear about.

Most of the recumbent people I have come into contact with are your typical mild mannered nerdy old white guys who were NEVER particularly skilled riders. My guess is the number of recumbent riders who had raced anything in the past (and won) is very low in the single digits of percentages.

Since you break that mold it does add balance to the discussion.

---------------------

My point is simple:

The fairings should be just to give "improvement" over the standard upright because when you want to do fun stuff on an ebike the handling matters a lot.

So my argument is that a "mixed" configuration of upright and aerodynamic is the better compromise.

And if you look at something like MotoGP racing that is really where the concept of a recumbent getting into that kind of rough and tumble battle is out of the question simply because the recumbent physics can't deal with the intensity.

Here is a good article on the subject:
https://www.odd-bike.com/2019/07/guest-post-robert-horns-rohorn-two.html

 

[spinningmagnets]

I wouldn't be against riding a recumbent with mild aero fairings. I just haven't found an affordable one that I like. Plus, right now I already have an ebike that works well for me.

As to fairings, I dont ride fast enough to make them worthwhile. But aero benefits fascinate me...

The "sock" behind a rider reduces as much drag as adding a significant front fairing, however, even a small front fairing can improve rider comfort.

I recall some studies on reducing drag from the front wheel on motorcycles. If the wheel is filled-in with covers, it dramatically reduced wheel drag from turbulence, but it also allowed cross-winds to occasionally nudge the steering, with the solid wheel acting as a sail.

It was found that a useful compromise was to enclose the top half of the wheel with a stationary cover, and leaving the bottom half of the spokes exposed to cross-winds.

The top half was chosen to cover because the spokes are traveling forwards and they produced much more turbulence than the bottom half of the wheel.

When riding fast on a motorcycle, I found that gloves were a requirement for many reasons, one of which is how cold my hands became from the wind, if I had no fairing.

 

[BalorNG]

I wouldn't be against riding a recumbent with mild aero fairings. I just haven't found an affordable one that I like. Plus, right now I already have an ebike that works well for me.

As to fairings, I dont ride fast enough to make them worthwhile. But aero benefits fascinate me...

The "sock" behind a rider reduces as much drag as adding a significant front fairing, however, even a small front fairing can improve rider comfort.

I recall some studies on reducing drag from the front wheel on motorcycles. If the wheel is filled-in with covers, it dramatically reduced wheel drag from turbulence, but it also allowed cross-winds to occasionally nudge the steering, with the solid wheel acting as a sail.

It was found that a useful compromise was to enclose the top half of the wheel with a stationary cover, and leaving the bottom half of the spokes exposed to cross-winds.

The top half was chosen to cover because the spokes are traveling forwards and they produced much more turbulence than the bottom half of the wheel.

When riding fast on a motorcycle, I found that gloves were a requirement for many reasons, one of which is how cold my hands became from the wind, if I had no fairing.

If your wheel has negative steering offset, it is immune to this effect, and in theory if either offset large enough, or there is a sort of 'windvane fender/fairing' behind the wheel - it might actually add considerable stability due to it countering 'wind steer' from trail steering input and provided a sort of 'aerodynamic trail effect'.

But this is out of the question on upright bike because it will interfere with your legs, and is not simple even on a recumbent - mostly for same reasons.

Also, it will be largely useless on a wheel with fat tires, works best on narrow 'aero' rims, though I intend to experiment with a plus-sides rime and 2.0 tire that is about as wide as the rim and hence *might* work.

 

[SafeDiscDancing]

As to fairings, I dont ride fast enough to make them worthwhile. But aero benefits fascinate me...

The Class 1 and Class 2 ebikes were given the 20 mph speed limit so no aerodynamic advantage exists by doing a redesign.

Class 3 at 28 mph starts to see serious wind resistance, so it begins to make sense.

Ideally the Class 3 should have wider rims, fatter stronger tires, better brakes and some moderate aerodynamic advantages to optimize the 28 mph situation.