Bents Selling Like Hotcakes!!
cyc...@bikeroute.com
Recumbent bicycle sales are going off the map!! All of our manufacturers
here at http://www.bikeroute.com are reporting banner years. The demand is
so strong, in fact, that most cannot deliver on orders made today for 8-16
weeks!
Seems that the Recumbent Bicycle has finally arrived!!!!!!!!!!
--
Attack with L@ve!!
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| http://www.BikeRoute.com/awake.html {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
TransAm w/us in 2000: Cycle America http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'
Rick Mills
In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent cyc...@bikeroute.com wrote:
Not to be cynical (well, maybe a little), but I hope the recumbent becoming
popular is a "GOOD THING". When the PC became popular, the technology
went up, but the quality went down. One good thing happened, though, the
price went down! Sometimes you have to pay a high price for a niche item,
tho, and sometimes that niche item is made a lot better than the popular
counterpart.
All said and done - I am glad it's becoming popular, because
that means awareness of bicycle transportation will also become popular,
which means better roads, trails and bikeways!
-rick
: Recumbent bicycle sales are going off the map!! All of our manufacturers
: --
: Attack with L@ve!!
: \ | '\'
--
| Rick Mills __o Views expressed are mine. They do not |
| Lakefront Supply _`\<,_ necessarily reflect those of Lakefront.|
| ri...@enteract.com (*)/ (*) |
+---------------------^-^--^^--^^--------^^-^---------------------------------+
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <cycleam-2304...@kelp248.cruzio.com>,
cyc...@bikeroute.com wrote:
>
> Recumbent bicycle sales are going off the map!! All of our manufacturers
> here at http://www.bikeroute.com are reporting banner years. The demand is
> so strong, in fact, that most cannot deliver on orders made today for 8-16
> weeks!
Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that people
are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is a lot of
hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts and I expect many of these 'bents to
put in more garage time than road time in rather short order as people
find that 'bents aren't any faster than uprights.
Not to say that there aren't plenty of good points about 'bents.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Warren Block
[r.b.marketplace and ba.bicycles removed from list]
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that people
> are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is a lot of
> hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts and I expect many of these 'bents to
> put in more garage time than road time in rather short order as people
> find that 'bents aren't any faster than uprights.
This assumes that people are buying them to go faster. I'm often asked
about my recumbent, and the most common questions, in order, are:
"Is it hard to ride?" (No.)
"Is it comfortable?" (Yes.)
"Do the small wheels slow you down?" (No.)
"How much are they?" (Depends.)
If we talk for an extended time, speed comes up, but usually they ask how
fast I've gone on the bike, not whether it's faster than a normal bike.
So it seems that the comfort issue is either well-known, or perhaps more
likely, obvious from looking at the bike, and speed is not the first
concern of most of the people interested. No doubt some owners will end
up with a bike that spends garage time. This is already the case with
many uprights, particularly for those would-be cyclists who haven't put in
the initial saddle time required for overcoming the discomfort threshold,
or maintaining that toughened tissue. These usually aren't people who are
overly concerned with speed.
--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
http://extra.newsguy.com/~wblock
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <6hq3of$n1t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>, tku...@diabloresearch.com spake thusly:
>
>Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that people
>are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is a lot of
>hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts and I expect many of these 'bents to
>put in more garage time than road time in rather short order as people
>find that 'bents aren't any faster than uprights.
>
because 'bents are far more comfortable even if not faster.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
The cogno-intellectual implications of this research create a whole new
paradigm for the subject.
Eric Bazan
Warren Block <wbl...@rapidnet.com> writes:
> [r.b.marketplace and ba.bicycles removed from list]
>
> "Is it hard to ride?" (No.)
> "Is it comfortable?" (Yes.)
> "Do the small wheels slow you down?" (No.)
> "How much are they?" (Depends.)
>
> If we talk for an extended time, speed comes up, but usually they ask how
> fast I've gone on the bike, not whether it's faster than a normal bike.
>
So Recumbents are more comfortable on long rides. That makes
some sense. Just how much faster are recumbernts than a normal
upright? I can see how they might be a lot faster on downhills
because of their aero advantage. But what about flat ground, or
going uphill? Can you ride a 'bent comfortably on a rough road?
How manoeverable is a recumbent compared to a normal upright?
Can you ride a recumbent off-road (trail), or jump a recumbent?
-Eric Bazan
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <6hqraq$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.at
t.net>, Eric Bazan <wnsu...@att.net> spake thusly:
>
> So Recumbents are more comfortable on long rides. That makes
>some sense. Just how much faster are recumbernts than a normal
>upright?
Depends, anything from not at all to lots. I save an average of about 30
seconds on a 12 minute commute, the HPV hour record is about 48 miles as
opposed to 33 for an upright.
> I can see how they might be a lot faster on downhills
>because of their aero advantage. But what about flat ground, or
>going uphill?
At least as fast on the flat but probably slower uphill, it's the
overall effect that counts though. It's also very hard to judge as rider
fitness plays such a big part, personally I have come to expect to
overtake any other cyclist I encounter uphill or down, but then I used
to do this on an upright too.
> Can you ride a 'bent comfortably on a rough road?
Yes, but with my above seat steering Kingcycle it can be hard to stay in
the seat at high (30mph+ IME) speeds on rough roads.
>How manoeverable is a recumbent compared to a normal upright?
Probably less so, but the only time it's a problem is when I'm trying to
ride round in circles to demonstrate the bike to people.
>Can you ride a recumbent off-road (trail), or jump a recumbent?
I only ride mine on tarmac but many people reckon you can ride unpaved
trails with the right recumbent, I wouldn't like to try a jump. At the
end of the day a recumbent will never be a good mountain bike.
Jobst Brandt
Warren Block writes:
>> Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that
>> people are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is
>> a lot of hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts and I expect many of
>> these 'bents to put in more garage time than road time in rather
>> short order as people find that 'bents aren't any faster than
>> uprights.
> This assumes that people are buying them to go faster. I'm often
> asked about my recumbent, and the most common questions, in order,
> are:
> "Is it hard to ride?" (No.)
> "Is it comfortable?" (Yes.)
> "Do the small wheels slow you down?" (No.)
> "How much are they?" (Depends.)
> If we talk for an extended time, speed comes up, but usually they
> ask how fast I've gone on the bike, not whether it's faster than a
> normal bike.
This is an assumption usually made by people who get sore necks and
seats from bicycling, people who don't ride much. Their first thing
is to complain about saddles and buy a broad one that is comfortable
to sit on, however, such saddles are not comfortable to ride because
sitting on the muscles that propel you causes severe charley horses
from lack of circulation. Bike gets garage time.
The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is
largely parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the
rider down on his pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back.
It's like having a heated Camelback and no chance of changing position
by standing or riding no-hands on a conventional bicycle.
Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
and rider in the air. Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
or at all.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Harvey J Gartner
David Reid wrote:
> I'd expect this to happen less than with conventional bikes simply
> because 'bents are far more comfortable even if not faster.
>
>
More of the baby boomers are in the arthritis age and many want to keep
riding supports the "Comfort" asspect being very important. I love my Ryan
Vanguard, which was bought because I can no longer ride any of my uprights.
Harvey
Jax Fl
Walter N. Smith
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:23:28 -0600, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>In article <cycleam-2304...@kelp248.cruzio.com>,
> cyc...@bikeroute.com wrote:
>Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that people
>are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is a lot of
>hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts and I expect many of these 'bents to
>put in more garage time than road time in rather short order as people
>find that 'bents aren't any faster than uprights.
As a 'benter, I just have to take exception to the statement that
recumbents are being bought out of ignorance. It has been my
experience that, probably because of cost, that most 'bent buyers do a
heck of a lot of research before they put down the money for a new
bike. I have turned on quite a few riders to the 'bent experience by
giving test rides and putting forth the "hype".
I have to admit that recumbents are not much faster than uprights, but
they are so much more comfortable to ride that most people finnd that
they put on more miles than ever before. Most of the 'benters who
switch never go back to uprights. In my own case, after a year I was
convinced enough that I sold my Masi Grand Criterium and have not
ridden my Assenmacher tourng bike for four years. It is a shame to
leave it hanging in the garage, but it is so uncomfortable to ride
that it will probably just stay there.
Walter Smith
Warren Block
Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
>
> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> view of the road ahead.
Of course. The amount of road visible ahead varies a lot from bike to
bike; on my recumbent, I have a much better angle to see the road ahead
than on the upright. That could probably be improved on the upright with
a taller stem. (Most recumbents are not so laid-back that your feet or
the bike itself are significantly blocking the view of the road.)
Warren Block
Eric Bazan (wnsu...@att.net) wrote:
>
> So Recumbents are more comfortable on long rides. That makes
> some sense. Just how much faster are recumbernts than a normal
> going uphill?
It's difficult or impossible to quantify. I'm faster, or more precisely,
less slow on my recumbent than on my upright, but I suspect that's due to
more riding. (It doesn't seem to translate back to the upright when I
ride it, though.)
> Can you ride a 'bent comfortably on a rough road?
Depends on the bike. My unsuspended model works on the rough gravel roads
we have around here, but I'm not fond of washboard. Newer suspended
models would be nice for this, but it hasn't been a problem. For the
worst bumps, it's possible to suspend yourself between the handlebars and
seat back.
> How manoeverable is a recumbent compared to a normal upright?
Again, it varies. A lot. There are SWBs with wheelbases as short or
shorter than most uprights, and very long LWBs. There is also a wide
variety in combinations of head angles and fork variables.
> Can you ride a recumbent off-road (trail),
I've done that with mine (BikeE) on some pretty rough hiking trails. Fire
roads are no problem. As with uprights, the limits are usually more in
people's minds than in reality.
> or jump a recumbent?
Suspension is advised for anything big. Minor stuff is no big deal, and
the skill of the rider determines what's minor. Again, it also depends on
the bike. There are full suspension models that are supposed to be able
to deal with big jumps, particularly the Haluzak bikes.
bla...@flash.net
In article <6hr66n$r...@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>,
jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
, such saddles are not comfortable to ride because
> sitting on the muscles that propel you causes severe charley horses
> from lack of circulation. Bike gets garage time.
>
> The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is
> largely parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the
> rider down on his pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back.
> It's like having a heated Camelback and no chance of changing position
> by standing or riding no-hands on a conventional bicycle.
>
> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
> in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
> the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
> and rider in the air. Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
> or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
> or at all.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
>
>
I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list and
the HPV list.
If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe and quit bothering the rest of us.
Your observations are overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you
haven't ridden a recumbent.
ChuckD
Jobst Brandt wrote in message <6hr66n$r...@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>...
>.....
>This is an assumption usually made by people who get sore necks and
>seats from bicycling, people who don't ride much.
This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that people who ride thousands
of miles per year on an upright don't get sore? I've ridden for 25+ years
averaging 5,000 miles per year on my road bike. When I rode it on 170 mile
days, you bet things were sore when I finished. You don't get sore on long
rides? When I switched to my recumbent (a P38) two years ago, my average
went up to 6,500 miles per year. I've ridden back-to-back double centuries
on the recumbent, and when I was through, the only things that were sore
were my legs.
People on uprights should be grateful for recumbents. When a good rider on
a recumbent drops you on your wedgie, you can always blame it on the
equipment.
Chuck Davis
sean_w...@bc.sympatico.ca
Jobst Brandt wrote:
a load BS
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <6hu2jc$5sa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bla...@flash.net wrote:
>
> I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list
> and the HPV list.
> If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe and quit bothering the rest
> of us.
> Your observations are overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you
> haven't ridden a recumbent.
And if he has ridden a recumbent and he still has the same opinion
you still wouldn't want him saying negative things on 'your'
newsgroups.
Kiss it off. I've ridden a recumbent, though only for a short distance.
I've talked to a lot of 'bent riders and watched them when I've been
riding around them. The case for them is tremendously over-stated by
the recumbent group.
1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected. I am sure that
some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
2) They do not have a speed advantage as far as I have been able
to determine. They are faster in some ways than uprights and slower
in others. My observation is that they probably average slower though
not by much.
3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
result is that 'bents stop more often.
4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
6) Because they have a lower center of gravity they fall quicker when
they do fall. People who ride them don't seem to fall very often so
that isn't much of a complaint.
As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
a positive item.
Jobst Brandt
Warren Block writes:
>> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
>> view of the road ahead.
> Of course. The amount of road visible ahead varies a lot from bike to
> bike; on my recumbent, I have a much better angle to see the road ahead
> than on the upright. That could probably be improved on the upright with
> a taller stem. (Most recumbents are not so laid-back that your feet or
> the bike itself are significantly blocking the view of the road.)
I'm not talking about visibility but ability to absorb a bump in the road.
On rough pavement with thinks like frost heave, the recumbent and rider
get heaved! The bicyclist just absorbs the bump in his legs.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
blakeo writes anonymously:
>> , such saddles are not comfortable to ride because
>> sitting on the muscles that propel you causes severe charley horses
>> from lack of circulation. Bike gets garage time.
>> The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is
>> largely parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the
>> rider down on his pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back.
>> It's like having a heated Camelback and no chance of changing position
>> by standing or riding no-hands on a conventional bicycle.
>> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
>> view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
>> in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
>> the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
>> and rider in the air. Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
>> or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
>> or at all.
> I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this
> list and the HPV list. If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe
> and quit bothering the rest of us. Your observations are
> overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you haven't ridden a
> recumbent.
I have heard only that recumbents are superior to conventional
bicycles in practically every respect and that the people who don't
use them are misguided or worse. In response I bring up some of the
basic failings of recumbents and you get annoyed rather than refute
what I propose.
In recent recumbent literature, I see that most recumbents have moved
toward 20 inch wheels, apparently to address some of the major design
problems. This does not improve ride quality. Moulton put suspension
on his bikes because bicycles with such small wheels need it.
Suspension wasn't so much a feature as it was evidence of a problem.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Brad Wilson
In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
: I'm not talking about visibility but ability to absorb a bump in the road.
: On rough pavement with thinks like frost heave, the recumbent and rider
: get heaved! The bicyclist just absorbs the bump in his legs.
: Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
I bet you have seen some pretty good recumbent crashes in
your days, Jobst.
Tell us about a few of them.
--
Brad Wilson
br...@wubios.wustl.edu
http://www.biostat.wustl.edu/~brad
Warren Block
Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
> Warren Block writes:
>
> >> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> >> view of the road ahead.
>
> > bike; on my recumbent, I have a much better angle to see the road ahead
> > than on the upright. That could probably be improved on the upright with
> > a taller stem. (Most recumbents are not so laid-back that your feet or
> > the bike itself are significantly blocking the view of the road.)
>
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
> On rough pavement with thinks like frost heave, the recumbent and rider
> get heaved! The bicyclist just absorbs the bump in his legs.
You may be overstating the case. We have plenty of rough roads, potholes,
and frost heave here, but I've never been thrown from the bike when
running over these obstacles at speed. I have been thrown from uprights
when the front wheel dropped into a pothole, which the recumbent's much
lower and farther back center of gravity helps prevent. A deep enough
hole will be bad for any kind of bike.
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <6i272q$mcv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>, tku...@diabloresearch.com spake thusly:
>
>Kiss it off. I've ridden a recumbent, though only for a short distance.
>I've talked to a lot of 'bent riders and watched them when I've been
>riding around them. The case for them is tremendously over-stated by
>the recumbent group.
>
is a different skill and takes at least weeks if not months to become as
fit and competent on a recumbent as you were on an upright.
>1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
>at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
>fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected. I am sure that
>some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
>
This is surely more to do with fitness than comfort?
>2) They do not have a speed advantage as far as I have been able
>to determine. They are faster in some ways than uprights and slower
>in others. My observation is that they probably average slower though
>not by much.
>
As above. AFAIK the HPV and hour and flying 200m speed records are at
speeds that are physically impossible on an unfaired upright.
>3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
>result is that 'bents stop more often.
>
Bents support the riders body in a much more natural way, so position
changes etc. are less necessary, hence I certainly stop less often and
ache less at the end of the ride. In fact if I do stop it is due to
physical exhaustion (this is down to fitness not the design of the bike)
and I usually stay on the bike until I have recovered a bit as it is
the most comfortable position to be in.
>4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
>to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
>
Many people seem to do OK with panniers and underseat bags.
>5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
>is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
>
>6) Because they have a lower center of gravity they fall quicker when
>they do fall. People who ride them don't seem to fall very often so
>that isn't much of a complaint.
>
Also you don't have nearly so far to fall so it doesn't tend to hurt so
much and you are much less likely to come off head first.
>As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
>who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
>normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
>buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
>a positive item.
Having ridden both uprights and recumbents for several years and not
having any physical infirmaties I certainly don't see recumbents as a
niche product for people who can't ride a "proper" bike.
Warren Block
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> 5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
> is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
Off-road...done that. It works on the rough trails I've ridden. What
problems did you encounter riding a recumbent on rough roads? While South
Dakota's are notably better than some, we also have our share of bad
roads, including rutted and washboard gravel and fire roads. (Is this
like the "can't ride a road bike off-road" thing?)
> As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
> who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
> normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
> buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
> a positive item.
There's been a surge in recumbent sales since about 1996. ("Surge" being
a relative term; compared to upright sales, it's still a tiny number.)
We're seeing more postings by new recumbent owners in the bikes groups,
and expect that to increase a lot this year (this will continue to bug
some people, but that's how it goes). As to that somehow turning
negative, let's plan on meeting here in a year and comparing notes.
David Cortesi
> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
> in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
> the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
> and rider in the air.
This is something I too would worry about on the type of SWB recumbent
that puts your feet at waist-level. However, on the Tour Easy and
comparable (Rans etc) there is fine clear view of the front wheel.
Yesterday on the Chico Wildflower, there was a delightful several-mile
descent on which I hit 47.5 without even tucking under the fairing, and
I could see the road surface very well, except for my eyes tearing
with the wind.
I have taken some very rough asphalt at speed, and you definitely take
more shock than the "knee-action" upright jockey stance allows.
However, I have *never* felt like losing either my seat or control.
This is where the LWB chassis helps: first the frame absorbs a lot
of shock, and second, it is extremely stable in yaw.
> Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
> or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
> or at all.
Last time the Tour Easy folks had a factory ride, a gang of 8 of us
had to carry our bikes up a 50-foot embankment to transition from
a country road to an expressway. Later, we carried the bikes over
a 50-yard stretch of soft dirt where a bridge had been washed out.
It was no big deal: the bike weighs about 40 lbs with fairing and
water bottles, but it can be carried at shoulder level. The balance
point on the top tube is just ahead of the seat.
(The guy with the Greenspeed trike was sweatin' a bit, tho :-)
--
David Cortesi - d_cortesi at yahoo dot com
bla...@flash.net
In response I bring up some of the
> basic failings of recumbents and you get annoyed rather than refute
> what I propose.
>
> In recent recumbent literature, I see that most recumbents have moved
> toward 20 inch wheels, apparently to address some of the major design
> problems. This does not improve ride quality. Moulton put suspension
> on his bikes because bicycles with such small wheels need it.
> Suspension wasn't so much a feature as it was evidence of a problem.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
>
1) I wrote nothing anonymously, as you asserted.
2) I asked whether you had ridden a recumbent. You did not answer.
3) You seem to cruise lists and pick fights. Is this another instance of that
process?
4) All bikes are undergoing design refinements and major changes. Is
suspension on uprights "evidence of a problem?"
5) It is virtually impossible to change wheel sizes on an upight and
accomplish anything meaningful while it is pretty common on recumbents. Your
observation on the subject is meaningless.
Blake Olson
Jobst Brandt
Brad Wilson writes:
>> I'm not talking about visibility but ability to absorb a bump in
>> the road. On rough pavement with thinks like frost heave, the
>> recumbent and rider get heaved! The bicyclist just absorbs the
>> bump in his legs.
> I bet you have seen some pretty good recumbent crashes in your days,
> Jobst.
I've never seen a recumbent descend fast on roads in this area because
the seem to take the possibility of coming around a turn with a bump
in the road seriously. In any case, the ones I have seen are cautious
and slow. I haven't seen a lot of crashes in all my riding except in
races. That doesn't mean that none occur.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Douglas K Landau
yahoo! dude i just bought a ryan vanguard - they RIP!
rode it to work the other day for the first time - 40 miles
each way, passing uprights like they were standing still,
(ok, except one) and when i got off i was hardly even tired and
was ready to do it again. Plus i didnt want to eat like a horse
when i got there or when i got home. I think you save tons of
energy by sitting down and leaning back.
Doug
Harvey J Gartner (harvey...@ibm.net) wrote:
Brad Wilson
: > I bet you have seen some pretty good recumbent crashes in your days,
: > Jobst.
: I've never seen a recumbent descend fast on roads in this area because
: the seem to take the possibility of coming around a turn with a bump
: in the road seriously. In any case, the ones I have seen are cautious
: and slow. I haven't seen a lot of crashes in all my riding except in
: races. That doesn't mean that none occur.
Sorry, Jobst, I just thought you'd have numbers,
personal accounts, something to back up your
assertion that recumbents would be prone
to crashing on bumps. It could be that recumbent
riders are less competitive or skilled
than upright riders, and would descend
more cautiously. Recumbent riding
isn't that popular and probably not
too appealing to the competitive crowd.
Without any actual data, it's hard to do
anything more than jump to conclusions.
Jeff Potter
I personally notice the possible desirability for full suspension
since my hpv is fully faired and high speed. However, if I
can't get that, I'll make my own frame with a longer wheelbase.
I like the allweather feature of my hpv. With full sus (or longer wb)
I think I'd get allroad ability, too.
--
Jeff Potter j...@glpbooks.BADMAIL.com delete '.BADMAIL' to reply
***"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Magazine of DIY Adventure and Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... with new bookstore & bulletin board
Michael Prybell
I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
--
=============================================
Life is like good singletrack. It has it's painful
moments, but for the most part it's a great time !!!
Hammer On, Mike. mpry...@softhome.net
=============================================
Warren Block wrote in message <6i2jcr$1...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
Douglas K Landau
It's not supposed to make sense. It's just flame-bait.
DL
ChuckD (CHUCK...@prodigy.net) wrote:
: Jobst Brandt wrote in message <6hr66n$r...@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>...
: >.....
: >This is an assumption usually made by people who get sore necks and
: >seats from bicycling, people who don't ride much.
: This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that people who ride thousands
: of miles per year on an upright don't get sore? I've ridden for 25+ years
: averaging 5,000 miles per year on my road bike. When I rode it on 170 mile
: days, you bet things were sore when I finished. You don't get sore on long
: rides? When I switched to my recumbent (a P38) two years ago, my average
: went up to 6,500 miles per year. I've ridden back-to-back double centuries
: on the recumbent, and when I was through, the only things that were sore
: were my legs.
: People on uprights should be grateful for recumbents.
have a GRATEful day!
Douglas K Landau
Warren Block (wbl...@rapidnet.com) wrote:: >
: > >> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
: > >> view of the road ahead.
: > > Of course. The amount of road visible ahead varies a lot from bike to
: > > bike; on my recumbent, I have a much better angle to see the road ahead
: > > than on the upright. That could probably be improved on the upright with
: > > a taller stem. (Most recumbents are not so laid-back that your feet or
: > > the bike itself are significantly blocking the view of the road.)
: > I'm not talking about visibility but ability to absorb a bump in the road.
: Sorry, my misunderstanding.
No, you read correctly. JB is doubletalking and sef-contradicting.
DL
Douglas K Landau
Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
: Warren Block writes:
: This is an assumption usually made by people who get sore necks and
: seats from bicycling, people who don't ride much. Their first thing
: is to complain about saddles and buy a broad one that is comfortable
: to sit on, however, such saddles are not comfortable to ride because
: sitting on the muscles that propel you causes severe charley horses
: from lack of circulation. Bike gets garage time.
this is flamebait and nothing more. and I am biting!
the joke is on me - hahaha!
Doug
Warren Block
Michael Prybell (mpry...@softhome.com) wrote:
> I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
> Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
The trails I've ridden on my unsuspended recumbent are of moderate
difficulty. Gravel roads are easy, as are fire roads and singletrack.
However, I'm not saying that recumbents are ideal for this; most are road
bikes (and upright road bikes aren't ideal for off-road, either). The
point is that it's not impossible to ride recumbents off-road.
Haluzak has a full-suspension off-road recumbent, the Traverse. I don't
know how well it works, but it looks like fun:
http://www.bikeroute.com/Haluzak/
JCMWeb
>>Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
>>
>> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
>> view of the road ahead.
Warren Block wrote:
>Of course. The amount of road visible ahead varies a lot from bike to
>bike; on my recumbent, I have a much better angle to see the road ahead
>than on the upright. That could probably be improved on the upright with
>a taller stem. (Most recumbents are not so laid-back that your feet or
>the bike itself are significantly blocking the view of the road.)
I have never ridden a recumbent, but I would imagine that visibility is
affected by the height of the rider's eyes. The recumbents that I have seen
keep the rider's eyes significantly lower than uprights do, which would limit
how far ahead the rider can see and what kind of obstacles and cars the rider
can see over. Is this a factor for 'bent riders?
John Marcos
Bob Newell
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
: 1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
: at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
: fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected. I am sure that
: some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
Very much a matter of individual preference, build, conditioning, etc.
We find our recumbent very much more comfortable than our upright.
: 3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
: result is that 'bents stop more often.
What do you base this on? On our recumbent we stop a lot *less* often
because we are comfortable. The whole point is that position changes are
not necessary to stay comfortable!
: 4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
: to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
You mean because front panniers are not an option?
: As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
: who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
: normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
So the only reason to ride a recumbent is physical infirmities? When
riding my upright long distances I often accuse myself of mental infirmities!
Bob Newell
Walter Knapp
Bob Newell wrote:
> : 4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
> : to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
>
> You mean because front panniers are not an option?
My Vanguard has a regular rear rack and front low riders. So, yes, for
some recumbents front panniers are an option. I use the same 4 panniers
as I do on my upright tourer. I can add another large bag on the back of
the seat. And still have the usual space on the top of the rear rack.
So, the Vanguard can carry more than my upright tourer.
> : As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
> : who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
> : normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
The assumption that all recumbent riders are disabled in some way is
false.
Walter Knapp
JCMWeb wrote:
> I have never ridden a recumbent, but I would imagine that visibility is
> affected by the height of the rider's eyes. The recumbents that I have seen
> keep the rider's eyes significantly lower than uprights do, which would limit
> how far ahead the rider can see and what kind of obstacles and cars the rider
> can see over. Is this a factor for 'bent riders?
I do ride a recumbent, a Vanguard which is a long wheelbase bike with
underseat steering. That means that visually the front wheel is
somewhere in the next county ahead of me and that and the crank is just
about all the bike I see. These are low, the rest of my view is
unobstructed.
As for height, the Vanguard seats you at about the level of the top of
the rear 26" tire. That puts my eyes at about four and a half feet up
from the ground. That's not all that much different than the actual
height of a upright rider's eyes, particularily if they are riding on
the drops. I'm also closer to the eye height of car drivers, so it's
easier to look them in the eye. As for looking over cars, some I can,
but I live and ride in a rural area. I've not tried commuting in a urban
setting with my Vanguard. It's really much better as a open road bike
for touring.
For my Vanguard, the more important factor is that I'm sitting fairly
close to upright, whereas a upright rider has a much more horizontal
position. So for the upright, you have to tilt your head up to see
forward. Particularily on long trips this can be quite tiring. For the
Vanguard, if anything, the position is a slight downward tilt from
normal relaxed head position. I feel that this difference means that I
see more and farther away than I do when riding upright.
Note that while upright bikes are very similar in design, recumbents
vary wildly. So it's hard to make generalizations about recumbents.
Virtually every possible combination of body position, two or more
wheels and a crank has been tried by someone. The more successful bikes
from this become more common, but there is no ideal, all around
recumbent.
Tho X. Bui
Someone wrote:
>
> I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
> Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
And I would like to see an MTB goes real fast on pavement.
:-)
This thread sure brings out a lot of emotions, silly ones, IMO.
Recumbents, MTB's, Road bikes, unicycles, they all have their
purpose in life. I think y'all should try them all and form your
own opinions. At anyrate, I'll start a list of experiences that
must be lived through for the compleat syclist (in a totally random
order, and in my completely scientific and unbiased opinion):
1. Do a time trial
2. Ride a fixed gear
3. build a wheel
4. Descend on a recumbent
5. try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels on back)
6. Jump a log
7. Trackstand at a stop sign (falling off optional)
8. Take that special someone on a tandem ride
9.
Tho
David Martin
Tho X. Bui wrote:
A fun list to which I will add.
> 9. Take some complete novices on a beautiful ride at a 'stop and smell the flowers along the way'. ANd enjoy it. especially the 'did we really go that far?' comments afterwards.
10. do a solo tour with no fixed route or timetable.
..d
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <mgLusgAe...@davita.demon.co.uk>#1/1,
David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Your personal experience of riding a recumbent is not representative, it
> is a different skill and takes at least weeks if not months to become as
> fit and competent on a recumbent as you were on an upright.
But, David, most fo the people who post on recumbents here on the
rec.bicycles. conferences tell us that after the first minute they
have been totally convinced. I wasn't. That isn't a negative against
recumbents: I'm saying that their case is overstated and you are
telling me that I have to use common sense. I think that we are
saying the same thing from different perspectives.
> >1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
> >at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
> >fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected. I am sure that
> >some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
> >
> This is surely more to do with fitness than comfort?
Well, I don't know. What are we talking about? I see some upright
rider limping around and holding their butts and complaining and
they are advised to ride a recumbent and get rid of that pain. Then
I see a recumbent rider doing the same thing and he's told that he
has to get more fit. Seems a double standard to me.
> As above. AFAIK the HPV and hour and flying 200m speed records are at
> speeds that are physically impossible on an unfaired upright.
Recumbents CAN have a smaller frontal area and better drag coefficient
than an upright. Granted. But the average recumbent doesn't. And the
machines that were used for these records aren't practical for real
use.
> Bents support the riders body in a much more natural way, so position
> changes etc. are less necessary, hence I certainly stop less often and
> ache less at the end of the ride. In fact if I do stop it is due to
> physical exhaustion (this is down to fitness not the design of the bike)
> and I usually stay on the bike until I have recovered a bit as it is
> the most comfortable position to be in.
Well, firstly, man is an upright animal. I have a problem with the
idea that sitting is more natural than standing. But in any case
I can say the same thing about riding an upright. How many recumbents
have been in the Race Across America? Those ultra-marathoners ride
sometimes for days in the saddle. They have neck problems.
> Many people seem to do OK with panniers and underseat bags.
How do you mount an underseat bag on a recumbent with 20" wheels?
> Also you don't have nearly so far to fall so it doesn't tend to hurt so
> much and you are much less likely to come off head first.
Yes, but a recumbent is basically a paved road machine. And that was
my point. The very idea of a mountain 'bent is pretty funny don't you
think?
> >As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
> >who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
> >normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
> >buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
> >a positive item.
>
> Having ridden both uprights and recumbents for several years and not
> having any physical infirmaties I certainly don't see recumbents as a
> niche product for people who can't ride a "proper" bike.
Well, I don't mean to say that recumbents aren't legitimate bicycles,
but they really are a niche market even if that niche is growing.
Not that I might not get one, hell I've got so many bicycles not that
the problem is room, not desire. :-)
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <6i2t31$vgi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
This is an on-going complaint of Jobst's. He likes to see
complete signatures at the "from" line. We all just skip
over that one by now. :-)
> 2) I asked whether you had ridden a recumbent. You did not answer.
Do you feel it necessary to ride a recumbent in order to understand
them? Jobst is an extremely competent cyclist that rides thousands
of miles a year EVERY YEAR. He has ridden all over the world and tends
to ride on terrain that would frighten most riders. He is also a
competent mechanical engineer who can analyze any mechanism as simple
as a recumbent at a glance. Unless you've stood on the roof of a
building with a Tour de France stage winner, while the crowd below
cheers, I wouldn't make such suggestions as requiring a person to
ride a recumbent to understand them.
> 3) You seem to cruise lists and pick fights. Is this another instance
> of that process?
You need to refute his statements not his motivations in this case.
> 4) All bikes are undergoing design refinements and major changes. Is
> suspension on uprights "evidence of a problem?"
The answer is YES! Full suspension on racers is understandable. Even on
very upscale MTB's. But why would the average MTB rider want suspencion?
In order to pay more for the bike, pay more for the maintenance and
get virtually no benefit? Of COURSE it's a problem!
> 5) It is virtually impossible to change wheel sizes on an upight and
> accomplish anything meaningful while it is pretty common on recumbents. Your
> observation on the subject is meaningless.
Huh? Moulton's and Bike Fridays have small wheels. Bike Fridays in particular
seem to ride identically to normal wheel sizes. Seems to me that they
accomplish quite a bit by changing wheel sizes.
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <6i31kj$a...@enews1.newsguy.com>#1/1,
wbl...@rapidnet.com (Warren Block) wrote:
>
> The trails I've ridden on my unsuspended recumbent are of moderate
> difficulty. Gravel roads are easy, as are fire roads and singletrack.
> However, I'm not saying that recumbents are ideal for this; most are road
> bikes (and upright road bikes aren't ideal for off-road, either). The
> point is that it's not impossible to ride recumbents off-road.
>
> Haluzak has a full-suspension off-road recumbent, the Traverse. I don't
> know how well it works, but it looks like fun:
Great, bring here to the bay area and we can go up Mt. Tamalpais. I
can probably get one of the 'boys' to show us the trail to
Repack. I'll bring my Bontrager and you can ride your 'bent.
Gary King
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> I have heard only that recumbents are superior to conventional
> bicycles in practically every respect and that the people who don't
> use them are misguided or worse. In response I bring up some of the
> basic failings of recumbents and you get annoyed rather than refute
> what I propose.
>
> In recent recumbent literature, I see that most recumbents have moved
> toward 20 inch wheels, apparently to address some of the major design
> problems. This does not improve ride quality. Moulton put suspension
> on his bikes because bicycles with such small wheels need it.
> Suspension wasn't so much a feature as it was evidence of a problem.
>
Yes there are pluses and minuses to recumbents. However, to the people
who ride them the minuses aren't an issue with them.
Assuming the effect of twenty inch wheels on an upright is the same as
on a recumbent is incorrect. Front suspension on a 'bent is there for
road holding, it is not necessary for comfort. Rear suspension is. Some
'bents have rear suspension only.
Gary King
Perth, Australia
Gary King
<tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
> In article <6hu2jc$5sa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> bla...@flash.net wrote:
> >
> > I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list
> > and the HPV list.
> > If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe and quit bothering the rest
> > of us.
> > Your observations are overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you
> > haven't ridden a recumbent.
>
> And if he has ridden a recumbent and he still has the same opinion
> you still wouldn't want him saying negative things on 'your'
> newsgroups.
> Kiss it off. I've ridden a recumbent, though only for a short distance.
You need several hundred miles to learn to ride a recumbent well.
Without "bent legs" you wouldn't appreciate the first ride. I know I
didn't.
> I've talked to a lot of 'bent riders and watched them when I've been
> riding around them. The case for them is tremendously over-stated by
> the recumbent group.
>
> 1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
> at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
> fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected. I am sure that
You are comparing riders. You are in better shape than some others. So
what?
> some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
If a bike saddle is so comfortable, why don't cars have them?
I have done tens of thousands of kms on uprights too. And I also
'thought' I was comfortable. Maybe the numbness to the pain plays tricks
on your mind.... Though you do have good nights sleep after easing your
aching body into the bunk after that mountainous 250km leg....
>
> 2) They do not have a speed advantage as far as I have been able
> to determine. They are faster in some ways than uprights and slower
> in others. My observation is that they probably average slower though
> not by much.
Fair enough. It takes a few years to get really good 'bent legs'.
> 3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
> result is that 'bents stop more often.
There you go again, comparing the riders, not the bikes. On an upright,
with so much weight on your hands and that saddle, you *need* postion
changes.
> 4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
> to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
'Bents are *made* for touring. There are more places to store gear. Bags
go under, hang off the sides and ontop. On the other hand, an upright
needs a trailer.
> 5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
> is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
True. 'bents are a replacement for road bikes. I still keep the mtb for
offroad fun. I hit the trails yesterday infact.
>
> 6) Because they have a lower center of gravity they fall quicker when
> they do fall. People who ride them don't seem to fall very often so
> that isn't much of a complaint.
You got it back to front. Uprights, because you are higher, when they
fall, fall *harder*. I got the scars still.
>
> As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
> who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
> normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
> buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
> a positive item.
No disability here, does colour blindness count?....
People in general are conservative and have a herd mentality, that alone
will keep sales growth slow.
The fact that you want to add the final *stab* by saying bents will
"turn into a negative rather than a positive item" shows that you are
somehow offended by people who choose not to ride your approved style of
bicycle.
I never criticize someone for the bike they ride. However you gotta
realise most 'bent riders were upright riders once and they know both
sides of the fence. So uninformed observations are going to be pretty
transparent.
We are cyclist too, mate.
Gary King
Perth, Australia
Wayne Pein
David Martin wrote:
> > 9. Take some complete novices on a beautiful ride at a 'stop and
> smell the flowers along the way'. ANd enjoy it. especially the 'did we
> really go that far?' comments afterwards.
> 10. do a solo tour with no fixed route or timetable.
>
>
11. Take your bike apart and put it back together.12. Convert a
motorist.
Wayne
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <35452E...@mwci.net>#1/1,
"Tho X. Bui" <bl...@mwci.net> wrote:
>
> Someone wrote:
> >
> > I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
> > Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
>
> And I would like to see an MTB goes real fast on pavement.
There is some sort of race down in southern California where they
start out in the desert and race on off-road trails and roads over
to the cost something like 150 miles. One year I remember Tinker
Juarez hit the road section, stopped and put on road tires and held
something close to 30 mph for a full hour. Documented.
> This thread sure brings out a lot of emotions, silly ones, IMO.
> Recumbents, MTB's, Road bikes, unicycles, they all have their
> purpose in life. I think y'all should try them all and form your
> own opinions. At any rate, I'll start a list of experiences that
> must be lived through for the compleat syclist (in a totally random
> order, and in my completely scientific and unbiased opinion):
>
> 1. Do a time trial
> 2. Ride a fixed gear
> 3. build a wheel
> 4. Descend on a recumbent
> 5. try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels on back)
> 6. Jump a log
> 7. Trackstand at a stop sign (falling off optional)
> 8. Take that special someone on a tandem ride
> 9.
I haven't descended on a recumbent and don't feel the need. Haven't
ridden a grownup tricycle. Don't feel the need either.
I took the #7 option several times. :-) Once I broke a blood vessel
in my hip and swelled up the size of a football where my wallet normally
is. I'd never felt so rich only to discover that it was skin instead
of filthy lucre.
Try bunny hopping cattle grates on very fast downhills. 40 mph an
airborn. Whahoooooooo! Maybe I can convince our fearless downhill
racer that that is dangerous. :-)
Curtis L. Russell
Lets make it simple. I've ridden a 103 mile hilly century on a hot day on a
Vision R42 and at the end of the day I was only tired. No pain anywhere. My
back was not covered in sweat, there was no heat build up and it definitely
is not like riding a wide saddle on a diamond frame. To say so is to speak
without experience. Period. My experience is 40 years of riding diamond
frames AND one fun year on recumbents. I've sold or am selling all my
diamond frames.
There is NO illusion about the pain thing. My wife tried a small-framed
Viner, a 24" front wheel Fuji and a Terry and still had hand and neck pain
while riding a diamond frame. The metric century she rode was no fun at
all. She switched to a Vision R45 and the neck pain disappeared, the hand
pain went away, and aside from some foot numbness, she has no cycling
related problems whatsoever. The metric century she did last year was for
her fun. Simple as that. It was fun. She enjoyed every mile.
No. Not every one needs a recumbent. If you can ride a diamond frame
comfortably, you'll simply get more bike for the dollar. But if you have
neck pain, if you have recurring wrist pain, if you have serious butt pain,
and you have already pursued all other alternatives, the recumbent is for
real. If you have no pain whatsoever, but want to increase comfort and see
more green than asphalt, you can get that from a recumbent as well.
Speaking as someone that has put tens of thousands of miles on diamond
frames or more and a couple of thousand on a recumbent, the view from the
average recumbent (and I have a LWB and a SWB) is simply better. You are
looking out naturally, not down at an angle.
And yes, I've nailed a major rise in the road doing 40 plus downhill and
all I did was lift a bit. No crash, no blow-out, and, BTW, no suspension
helping out. If you hit a bump unprepared on any bike you can go down.
Descending at speed without a clear view of the road isn't the smartest
thing on any bike, whether a Serotta or a Vision. No one said a recumbent
would prevent the fatal effects of terminally stupid bike riding.
BTW, I am marginally faster on all but very steep hills on my Vision R42
versus the Trek 1200 I was riding. Probably I could have gone faster,
marginally, when I was in shape on one of the racing frames that I have
owned, but at the end of a day I will have covered more distance on the
recumbent. Sort of like comparing a Lotus Super Seven to a Saab Turbo. You
just can't stay in that Lotus Super Seven or on that Lotus Supreme all
day...
Also BTW. I've done a lot of riding, contrary to the insinuation about the
source of recumbent riders. I doubt if the ability to carry my bike over a
mudhole is going to be a major consideration when buying a road bike. But
if I have to, yes, a recumbent CAN be lifted over a mudhole or fence by the
ordinary man or woman. Hell, we can even get it onto the roof carrier
without incurring hernias. Maybe I wouldn't use it as a cross bike, but I
wouldn't use a lot of bikes for a day of hopping fences and mudholes...
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in article
...
> This is an assumption usually made by people who get sore necks and
> seats from bicycling, people who don't ride much. Their first thing
> is to complain about saddles and buy a broad one that is comfortable
> to sit on, however, such saddles are not comfortable to ride because
> sitting on the muscles that propel you causes severe charley horses
> from lack of circulation. Bike gets garage time.
>
> The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is
> largely parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the
> rider down on his pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back.
> It's like having a heated Camelback and no chance of changing position
> by standing or riding no-hands on a conventional bicycle.
>
> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
> in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
> the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
> and rider in the air. Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
> or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
> or at all.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
>
>
>
Curtis L. Russell
There are a lot of competitive riders in the recumbents groups. I'm not one
of them so I can only talk about 40+ mile descents on an unfaired standard
SWB Vision. The faired recumbent crowd would regularly exceed that. I
regularly see recumbents descending with and faster than the diamond frame
crowd, and am amazed that someone that I assume puts more miles in than me
hasn't seen even one occurrence of same. But I guess what is, is. I would
suggest that anyone that sees a fit rider on a Gold Rush Replica, faired or
not, not assume that their diamond frame is going to make it to the bottom
of the hill faster than the GRR.
I hate to sound like a recumbent fanatic, because I'm not. I rode diamond
frames for 40 years, almost to the month. They start easier, are IMO a more
natural ride to learn, and if you find them comfortable, are a better
value. By and large, if you put the same money into a time trial bike, you
can probably come close to the same times as a fast unfaired recumbent
(i.e. $ 2500 plus). But that fast recumbent will be more comfortable at the
end of the ride for most people. And recumbents do have a better natural
vision - you look comfortably dead ahead and around. Some, perhaps most,
are slower uphill, but except for competition, it is how much ground you
cover by the end of the day and how comfortable you feel at that point. I
think the average recumbent wins hands down here for many, if not most,
people.
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
Brad Wilson <br...@wubios.wustl.edu> wrote in article
<6i2pf4$a32$1...@newsreader.wustl.edu>...
Kent W. Smith
Why does there seem to be a "bike's not better if it's not faster"
mentality? I've ridden uprights for YEARS and started riding a suspended
'bent this year in earnest. I'm not infirmed, disabled, unfit, or in any
way unable to continue riding my uprights. Matter of fact, I still use
my MTB regularly for the rough stuff, where it is a more appropriate
bike.
No single bike fit's every niche in cycling. The question is not whether
a 'bent is more suited to a particular purpose. The only matter of
consideration in my opinion is a simple one: FUN.
I extract an inordinate amount of enjoyment from riding my 'bent. That
should be, and in fact IS enough to warrant it's existence in my stable
(I own 4 bikes).
I bought one for my wife this year, and she immediately increased her
mileage significantly, simultaneously reducing discomfort. I can ride
just as far on my C'dale roadster - but I choose not to. My 'bent is
more comfortable in many ways, and is just plain more enjoyable to me.
I nor anyone else should justify riding bent over upright on the basis
that it is just as fast or any other reason than they simply enjoy it.
My 'bent has brought back to me the fundamental pleasure of riding. I
find myself wanting to ride more often. Simple as that.
I see no need for debate over the relative merits of one bike over
another. Any experienced rider has the ability to judge for themself
which steed to mount when going out the door. If I blow by you on your
upright - so what? Does that mean that my bike is 'better'? No. It
probably just means that a) you are not cycling for speed, b) you may
not be as fit as I am, c) I am pushing hard for a workout or any number
of reasons other than 'my bike is BETTER than yours'!
Not every bike should be a rocket, roadster, MTB, or trike. Enjoy the
diversity, and embrace the sport without so much prejudice against those
who choose differently than yourself.
Celebrate them all!
Curtis L. Russell
No. I see ahead better, easier on my SWB (short wheel base) recumbent
Vision as I am looking ahead naturally and can scan easily from side to
side. Whether watching traffic or scenery while touring, it is better. To
be seen I also, generally, use a flag with a spinner attached, but am
starting to be convinced that it works best for me seeing my wife and
vice-versa when we separate a bit, than actually needed for traffic.
More or less is true of my LWB Linear that I use for commuting - I just
haven't put the miles on it yet to speak authoritatively.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
----------
> From: JCMWeb <jcm...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
> Subject: Re: Bents Selling Like Hotcakes!!
> Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 6:04 PM
>
> >>Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
> >> view of the road ahead.
> I have never ridden a recumbent, but I would imagine that visibility is
> affected by the height of the rider's eyes. The recumbents that I have
seen
> keep the rider's eyes significantly lower than uprights do, which would
limit
> how far ahead the rider can see and what kind of obstacles and cars the
rider
> can see over. Is this a factor for 'bent riders?
>
> John Marcos
>
Curtis L. Russell
Jobst's comments about recumbent seats was flat out wrong (outside possibly
the BikeEs - I don't know, as I have no intention of riding one). This
comes directly from not riding recumbents while making blanket and
conjectural comments about them. An occasional IMO would incur fewer sharp
responses than conjecture posited as fact.
Standing on the roof with a Tour winner does not increase your expertise on
recumbents unless 1) the conversation is about recumbents and 2) the Tour
winner rides recumbents. I raced bikes and officiated for years and I'm not
aware of any of that that educated me on riding a recumbent. Certainly not
to the point that I would speak to seating or descending ability.
Nor does riding a diamond frame bike on any terrain. I rode for 40 years
on all sorts of frames on all sorts of roads and terrain. All of that
riding gained me little compared to the first ten miles on an actual
recumbent. And after riding a SWB Vision for a year and a LWB Linear for
about six months, all I can say for sure about other recumbents is that I
can't speak for them, either - except the seat and the position.
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote in article
Curtis L. Russell
If you count my wife as a converted motorist for number 12, I've done all
items on the list. But I would suggest changing it to 'What every cyclist
should consider doing...'. Its a good list, and I'd add one or two that I
haven't done - ride one of the slow motion technical competitions or ride
what MTB cyclists call a technical course - don't have the particular
skills for either. But I don't think you need to descend on a recumbent to
be a real cyclist. I will, say, however, that is among the funnest things
I've ever done...
Number 11 should be a) when you wanted to, and b) when you didn't plan to,
but had no choice and were short at least one critical tool. Maybe c) when
you used either a bobby pin, clothes hanger, or adjustable wrench for a
critical operation and you didn't know whether it would work or not. Or was
that for taking apart the MGB?
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
Wayne Pein <wayne...@unc.edu> wrote in article
<3545E3B3...@unc.edu>...
> David Martin wrote:
>
...
Jobst Brandt
Warren Block writes:
> The trails I've ridden on my unsuspended recumbent are of moderate
> difficulty. Gravel roads are easy, as are fire roads and
> singletrack. However, I'm not saying that recumbents are ideal for
> this; most are road bikes (and upright road bikes aren't ideal for
> off-road, either). The point is that it's not impossible to ride
> recumbents off-road.
> Haluzak has a full-suspension off-road recumbent, the Traverse. I
> don't know how well it works, but it looks like fun:
Well let me be more specific. Riding typical trails such as Mt
Tamalpais, the Bolinas Ridge trail, or for that matter most of the
forest trails here, require substantial leg articulation to absorb
irregularities, whether riding a bike with suspension or not. Bicycle
suspensions are in the 1-2 inch range while the legs take up 6-10.
On one occasion I was trail riding with a friend on a MTB who missed
seeing that I had just ridden over a large embedded root and sitting
on the saddle, this threw him and bike end over. That riders who
cannot stand up would have difficulty riding over such obstacles is
apparent and no matter of bicycle suspension would make up for it.
Even dirt motorcyclists, whose bikes have more than 12 inches travel,
stand on bumps known as whoop-de-doos for a good reason.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
David Casseres
>In article <mgLusgAe...@davita.demon.co.uk>#1/1,
> David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Bents support the riders body in a much more natural way, so position
>> changes etc. are less necessary, hence I certainly stop less often and
>> ache less at the end of the ride. In fact if I do stop it is due to
>> physical exhaustion (this is down to fitness not the design of the bike)
>> and I usually stay on the bike until I have recovered a bit as it is
>> the most comfortable position to be in.
>
>Well, firstly, man is an upright animal. I have a problem with the
>idea that sitting is more natural than standing. But in any case
>I can say the same thing about riding an upright. How many recumbents
>have been in the Race Across America? Those ultra-marathoners ride
>sometimes for days in the saddle. They have neck problems.
I once served as a crew member for a rider doing a 500-mile race (the
Furnace Creek 508) on a recumbent. He had spent many weeks training on
the recumbent, and he wound up setting the new recumbent record (somewhere
around 36 hours, I think). It was only the second time a recumbent had
finished this race.
He had taken up the recumbent because of a training injury to his arm, and
decided it was pretty nice after he got into it, and wanted to see if he
could better his previous course record in this race, which he set on a
conventional bike.
From talking with him and from observation, I learned some things that are
very different from what you usually hear about recumbents:
* His time on the recumbent was slower than his previous time on a
conventional bike, though it was still faster than quite a few other
riders on conventional bikes.
* He said it took a lot of training before his butt stopped hurting, since
he could never take his weight off it while riding.
* After about 400 miles his knees were hurting him quite badly, and at the
end of the race we had to lift him off the bike. His knees were not a big
problem on a conventional bike. On the other hand, he didn't have any
other physical complaints that could be related to the riding position.
I think that people who haven't tried a recumbent are much too quick to
repeat things they've heard about them third-hand. But also, people who
ride recumbents are much too ready to assume that everyone else has the
same discomforts as they do on conventional bikes and would love
recumbents as much as they do if they'd only try them.
--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Jeff Potter
Oddly enough I've done some unweighting and midair handling
and what felt like articulation with my fullfair HPV over crazy surprise
bumps and whoops several times. It's an extrashort wheelbase
homebrew---too short IMV, 37"---cranks 2" higher than hips. I've
only been benting 3 years and slowly dialing up my speed factor.
I come from USCF, norba, track background. (Set local TT record
and won a day at the training road race, hilly, against Cat2 field.
Old story.)
I too thought that unweighting was a goner. But in several emergencies
I've done it. I don't quite know how it works. I must torque
quite a bit with the handlebars. It happens quickly of course.
I seem to be able to go over curbs or jumps (heaves) and have
both tires land at the same time. Maybe I press back into
the rough fabric seat and get control with legs also in that
way. It doesn't happen all that often. I'm pleased when it
does. It seems I can toss my rig around quite well. I've
done crossovers and landed fine when bumped sideways.
It's not much, but it's helped me out in handling bad stuff.
No bunny hops though.
But I'm optimizing for casual effort 30mph-ave road commuter use.
Not mt-biking! Also no big downhills around here. It's great
HPV area actually: I go 40 on our gentle downgrades and the
runout is fantastic. Road conditions are OK, straight/clear,
but I'm considering sus for surprises and dirt road speed/comfort.
--
Jeff Potter j...@glpbooks.BADMAIL.com delete '.BADMAIL' to reply
***"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Magazine of DIY Adventure and Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... with new bookstore & bulletin board
Adam J Kightley
Got 99 problems and the Tho X. Bui ain't one...
> 5. try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels on back)
In that case, add "try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels at front)"
to the list.
As a rider of a road bike, recumbent and MTB, I found my ten minutes on a
recumbent trike perhaps the most glee-inducing of my cycling life. There was
a grin glazed onto my face for a hour afterwards.
AJK
Richard Taylor
Tho X. Bui wrote:
>
> 1. Do a time trial
> 2. Ride a fixed gear
> 3. build a wheel
> 4. Descend on a recumbent
> 5. try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels on back)
Hey - why discriminate...... especially when there are some very fun
4/5's on the market
rwt
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <1998042823...@p562-2.wantree.com.au>#1/1,
ga...@oceandigital.com.au (Gary King) wrote:
>
> You need several hundred miles to learn to ride a recumbent well.
> Without "bent legs" you wouldn't appreciate the first ride. I know I
> didn't.
Wait a minute Gary, first you tell 'bent riders tell us that we will
immediately see the improvement and now you say that you need to ride
the 'bent for awhile to see it. I know what you mean, but do you know
what I mean?
> You are comparing riders. You are in better shape than some others. So
> what?
I'm comparing riders of different style bikes. 'Bent riders are touting
the style differences, I'm saying that it ain't the style, it's the
rider. That appears to be what you just said also so we agree.
> If a bike saddle is so comfortable, why don't cars have them?
So cars are the standard of comfort? I've been nearly crippled by car
seats.
> There you go again, comparing the riders, not the bikes. On an upright,
> with so much weight on your hands and that saddle, you *need* postion
> changes.
I think that you have to have an odd physiognomy to be able to sit in
one position for very long periods of time while pedaling. I can't stand
in one position nor sit in one position for more than a couple of minutes
at a stretch.
> 'Bents are *made* for touring. There are more places to store gear. Bags
> go under, hang off the sides and ontop. On the other hand, an upright
> needs a trailer.
Urr, I'd like to see that 'bent.
> True. 'bents are a replacement for road bikes.
That was my point. Nothing wrong with 'bents -- but they are a niche
vehicle. Nothing wrong with full suspension mountain bikes either.
But dollars to donuts that they will soon peak and have a massive
drop in popularity as all of those frames start breaking off at the
pivot points.
> You got it back to front. Uprights, because you are higher, when they
> fall, fall *harder*. I got the scars still.
You miss the point. The higher center of gravity of the upright
causes them to fall much slower and so you can correct easier. I'm
not certain that that is a valid argument because I don't hear of
'bent riders falling all that often. So maybe a 'bent falls slow
enough for the reactions of a normal rider and the slower fall
of an upright isn't important.
> No disability here, does colour blindness count?....
> People in general are conservative and have a herd mentality, that alone
> will keep sales growth slow.
I didn't mean that the ONLY reason to buy them was disabilities
such as crushed disks and the like, but these people can ride
recumbents and NOT uprights in some cases. That is definitely a
positive feature of recumbents.
> The fact that you want to add the final *stab* by saying bents will
> "turn into a negative rather than a positive item" shows that you are
> somehow offended by people who choose not to ride your approved style of
> bicycle.
You 'bent types are certainly sensitive. My point is that if you
over-promote recumbents *AS HAS BEEN THE CASE* -- saying that they
are way more comfortable than uprights, that they are faster than
uprights, that they have all of these positive features and no
negative ones, people will, indeed, buy them in growing numbers.
When they find out that a 'bent is just a compromise like every
other bike they will be disappointed and these machines will go
into the garage and we might lose another rider.
If you want to promote 'bents, promote bicycling. It doesn't matter
whether it's uprights or 'bents since people will eventually work their
way around to what they like as long as they continue to ride.
> I never criticize someone for the bike they ride. However you gotta
> realise most 'bent riders were upright riders once and they know both
> sides of the fence. So uninformed observations are going to be pretty
> transparent.
>
> We are cyclist too, mate.
Then why all of the BS about recumbents? If they are so great then
they will sell themselve without the hooplah. We have read here
everything from recumbents being BUILT FOR TOURING to being
reminded that some serious speed records are held by recumbents
as if the Gold Rush was something that we could ride to work
carrying pannier and keeping up with cars.
Well the type of recumbent built for touring isn't very fast (neither
is a touring upright but we don't argue that they are.) And one
poster wrote to me in a previous conversation that there was a
nearly fully faired 'bent being sold that was almost as fast as the
Gold Rush. When I trailed the links about I found a 'bent with a
canvas partial fairing. When I finally got myself up off the ground
from laughing so hard I carried on.
Recumbent addicts won't win friends and influence enemies by hype.
At this point the best thing is to try and keep the most balanced
attitude possible. I realize that that is hard since most 'bent
riders are something of rebels by nature but that is the way to
keep the business going.
Eleanor MacMaster
- Ride a Century
- Ride in the rain for more than 5 miles
- Do a self-supported tour (carrying camping gear, food,
camp stove, sleeping bag, etc.)
- Meet a rider along the way and go have a glass of wine or
a coffee when you have reached your destination (even, or
especially, if it was not the one you originally have in
mind)
- Stop riding and go for a swim
-
- Stop riding and go see a baseball game, preferably minor
league (or local kids)
- Take your camera along on tour and photograph every cyclist
and bike you see along the way
--
"Biker Chick"
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <casseres-280...@cassda.apple.com>#1/1,
See, we can agree on most things. Less air more brain!
Tim Smith
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:15:32 -0600, tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>There is some sort of race down in southern California where they
>start out in the desert and race on off-road trails and roads over
>to the cost something like 150 miles. One year I remember Tinker
>Juarez hit the road section, stopped and put on road tires and held
>something close to 30 mph for a full hour. Documented.
Tailwinds are great, aren't they. :-) (Not that I could do 30 mph for
an hour on a MTB, even with a 25 mph tailwind. And what kind of
gearing did he have?)
--Tim (tss...@best.com)
Robert L. Frazier
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:19:36 +0000, Kent W. Smith <ke...@nortel.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Not every bike should be a rocket, roadster, MTB, or trike. Enjoy the
>diversity, and embrace the sport without so much prejudice against those
>who choose differently than yourself.
>
>Celebrate them all!
Hear, hear. I've never ridden a recumbent, or a MTB, or, indeed, anything but
a road bike. But I say `go for it'. I like riding my road bike (fixed gear,
one brake) because it is fairly fast and there is so little there: I overwhelm
it in size and weight, yet it is very efficient at moving me about.
Simplicity and speed. Others may have different desires, etc. No problem.
A choice of which bicycle to ride doesn't seem to me to have many moral
implications.
Best wishes,
Bob
--
Robert L. Frazier EMAIL: robert....@christ-church.ox.ac.uk
Christ Church TELEPHONE: +44 1865 276493
Oxford OX1 1DP FAX: +44 1865 794199
UK
WAYNE LUICK
All,
What is the criteria that "you" looked at when choosing a
'bent? Did you have an opportunity to test ride them before
you purchansed?
I'm looking into buying one in the near future and the only
manufacturer that is within a 100mi radius is Easy Riders.
TIA,
Wayne Luick
cyc...@bikeroute.com wrote:
>
> Recumbent bicycle sales are going off the map!! All of our manufacturers
> here at http://www.bikeroute.com are reporting banner years. The demand is
> so strong, in fact, that most cannot deliver on orders made today for 8-16
> weeks!
>
> Seems that the Recumbent Bicycle has finally arrived!!!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> Attack with L@ve!!
>
> ,__ _,
> \ |-~~---___ | \
> | M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
> /Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
> | 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
> / '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
> | '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
> | http://www.BikeRoute.com/awake.html {
> Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
> TransAm w/us in 2000: Cycle America http://www.BikeRoute.com/
> '-,_ __ \
> `~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
> \/~\ /~~~`---` | \
> \ / \ |
> \ | '\'
Douglas K Landau
Wayne,
go to Abent4Rent in sand city just north of monterey and rent
yourself a few different bents for an afternoon. bring a friend
to ride and swap with.
Then if you want to test-ride the ryan vaguard i bought there, lemme
know and i'll meet you somewhere (I don't think he has another Ryan)
personally, i dig the underseat steering.
Doug
WAYNE LUICK (wayne...@EBay.sun.com) wrote:
: All,
: TIA,
: Wayne Luick
: > \ | '\'
Duane Hentrich
WAYNE LUICK wrote:
>
> All,
>
> What is the criteria that "you" looked at when choosing a
> 'bent? Did you have an opportunity to test ride them before
> you purchansed?
Comfort, ease of adjustment, LWB/SWB option, simplicity of design,
ability to use 'standard' hardware (except for frame/seat),
elegance(coolness)
You really gotta at least tool around a parking lot on one before
laying down the kind of money bents cost nowadays.
Ended up with a Vision R40 USS with extra LWB kit. It's love.
> I'm looking into buying one in the near future and the only
> manufacturer that is within a 100mi radius is Easy Riders.
Assuming your in the SF Bay Area:
You can try out BikeE's and Visions at Bicycle Outfitter in Los Altos
and I think Garners in Palo Alto carry a couple brands.
You might also try calling the manufacturers and ask where there
closest dealer/distributor is.
Duane
Douglas K Landau
now -there's- some solid logic
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
: Do you feel it necessary to ride a recumbent in order to understand
: them? .....
: ..... Unless you've stood on the roof of a
Walter Knapp
WAYNE LUICK wrote:
>
> All,
>
> What is the criteria that "you" looked at when choosing a
> 'bent? Did you have an opportunity to test ride them before
> you purchansed?
I was looking for a comfortable tourer. This would be my third touring
bike in 35 years, so I wanted a durable one. I spent a total of 4 years
from start to buying.
Touring implys certain design items. The bike needs to be able to
gracefully carry a touring load. I'm used to the 4 panniers (front low
riders) and small handlebar bag route. I rejected any bent that could
not take a balanced load like this. I'm not keen on trailers.
A touring bike also needs to be relatively easy to repair and have a
minimum of special parts. That said for me that a standard size drive
wheel was necessary. Otherwise, you get into strange size chainrings and
such like.
Speaking of wheels, I prefer touring on high volume tires as the ride is
a bit nicer. My current favourite tire is the Avocet Cross 26x1.5. I
always use fenders. That combo sets some criteria on the frame
clearances.
I did not want a recumbent with either a high seating position or a high
crank. I did not like the look of the crank booms. That gave me a focus
of LWB recumbents. Most of the touring oriented recumbents fall in this
class, although quite a few others are used for touring.
I rode a number of different bents and looked up close at quite a few
more. The choice for me narrowed down eventually to the Tour Easy or a
Ryan Vanguard. The Vanguard fit everything I needed, the only question
was the USS steering. After a afternoon riding one, I decided that would
not be a problem. I do think that a recumbent with USS steering takes
more getting used to than one with ASS steering.
Notice I've hardly mentioned comfort. Sure, you get a recumbent for
comfort. But, it's a bike, you have certain things you want to do on it.
So, actual choice should be based on that. Comfort is certainly part of
the package with a recumbent. There are those that think that since a
recumbent is said to be comfortable, that it must be absolutely
comfortable. It's not that way, but it is an improvement. The remaining
comfort problems are fairly minor compared to the ones that are removed.
> I'm looking into buying one in the near future and the only
> manufacturer that is within a 100mi radius is Easy Riders.
I managed to try quite a few recumbents by taking my time. I'd meet
recumbent riders on organized tours and get to talking. Many would let
me ride their bikes. Locally, only Rans recumbents are to be found in
any of the LBS'. I did try the Rans Rocket at a LBS. Far too nimble for
a good tourer.
Even so, in the end I had not gotten a chance to ride the Vanguard. But,
I found someone selling his and was given the option of taking it on
approval. As I said, after a afternoon riding I was convinced it was the
best for me. Just as well, the bike had been shipped clear across the
US.
Note that, as is my custom, I did pretty completely regear the Vanguard.
It now runs 18-109" in the gearing department. I'm still deciding if
that's a wide enough system.
Walter Knapp
Walter Knapp
Eleanor MacMaster wrote:
>
> - Ride a Century
Been there, done that. My all time maximum day stands at 227 miles, done
from sunrise to sunset. Back in the dim mists of my youth.
> - Ride in the rain for more than 5 miles
Do all day downpours count? How about a week's worth? Been there, done
that.
> - Do a self-supported tour (carrying camping gear, food,
> camp stove, sleeping bag, etc.)
Is there any other way to go than touring? Lately I've gotten a bit
soft, more motel nights, more restaurants.
> - Meet a rider along the way and go have a glass of wine or
> a coffee when you have reached your destination (even, or
> especially, if it was not the one you originally have in
> mind)
Coffee, yes. Wine, no :-( Trouble is so many seem to bring a mania for
schedules with them on tour.
> - Stop riding and go for a swim
Been there, done that. Also waded into a swamp to take photos. etc.
> - Stop riding and go see a baseball game, preferably minor
> league (or local kids)
Well, not the whole game. But, I'm not much for organized team sports.
> - Take your camera along on tour and photograph every cyclist
> and bike you see along the way
I photograph quite a few, but not everybody. But, then, one of my other
hobbies is photography. I especially like macro photography. So, I stop
for every pretty flower, rattlesnake, frog, etc. Or, it seems that way
sometimes.
Phil Torrance
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <6hu2jc$5sa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> bla...@flash.net wrote:
> >
> > I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list
> > and the HPV list.
> > If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe and quit bothering the rest
> > of us.
> > Your observations are overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you
> > haven't ridden a recumbent.
>
> And if he has ridden a recumbent and he still has the same opinion
> you still wouldn't want him saying negative things on 'your'
> newsgroups.
Well, whether or not he has ever ridden a recumbent, he DOES say only
uninvited "negative things", e.g.:
<<<The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is largely
parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the rider down on his
pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back. It's like having a heated
Camelback and no chance of changing position by standing or riding no-hands on
a conventional bicycle. Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever
there is no clear view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its
equivalent in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising
off the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent and
rider in the air.>> <<I'm not talking about visibility but ability to absorb a
bump in the road. On rough pavement with thinks (sic) like frost heave, the
recumbent and rider get heaved! The bicyclist just absorbs the bump in his
legs.>> <<I have heard only that recumbents are superior to conventional
bicycles in practically every respect and that the people who don't use them
are misguided or worse. In response I bring up some of the basic failings of
recumbents and you get annoyed rather than refute what I propose. In recent
recumbent literature, I see that most recumbents have moved toward 20 inch
wheels, apparently to address some of the major design problems. This does
not improve ride quality. Moulton put suspension on his bikes because
bicycles with such small wheels need it. Suspension wasn't so much a feature
as it was evidence of a problem.>>>
To summarize and enumerate these "negative things": (1) The seat, including
back, of a 'bent is largely parallel to the ground (which is what broad
saddles are parallel to); (2a) The force of propulsion on a bent comes from
pushing off from a sweaty back parallel to the ground—(2b) the force on an
upright comes from gravity; (3) Every 'bent seat is like a heated Camelback;
(4) Every 'bent rider can't change position without stopping the bike; (5) In
riding no-hands all upright riders can change position in ways all 'bent
riders cannot; (6) no 'bent rider has a clear view of the road ahead (this IS
a clear reference to visibility although disavowed in a subsequent posting);
(7) Upright riders of all degrees of experience can easily absorb the bump in
the road that will throw every 'bent in the air; (8) All 'bent riders get
heaved by rough pavement; (9) All 'bent riders are not bicyclists; (10)
Recumbent fans, in a discussion group dedicated to recumbents, are peculiar in
unabashedly praising their passion; (11) All 'bent riders (on these lists)
patronize "wedgie" drivers (well, okay, some do, but see recent "wedgie"
thread on hpv for the voice of reason amongst 'bent fans); (12) The purpose of
these enthusiasts' discussion groups is to receive WITHOUT INVITATION polemic
criticism of 'bents (as opposed to a reasoned objective scientific discussion
of the breed, as exemplified in recent hpv threads on hill climbing); (13) The
purpose of these same groups is to become debating venues mounting a
refutation of UNINVITED, unsupported, and unbalanced accusations of 'bent
deficiencies; (14) Most 'bents did not have 20" wheels until recently; (15)
All 'bents have major design problems; (16) Moving to a 20" wheel does not
improve ride quality under any circumstances; (17) Small wheels have poor ride
quality (#16 notwithstanding); (18) All 'bents have inherent design problems
only suspension can cure; (19) Moulton only put suspension on his bikes to
kludge otherwise insoluble design problems; (20) Anyone putting suspension on
a 'bent is doing so only to solve otherwise insoluble design problems, as
opposed to the much different reasons (whatever they are) that suspension is
put on uprights.
Not a "positive thing" in that carload... and little or no evidence provided
to support these broad generalizations, a sign of attack against rather than
examination with. (The point about "invitation" is that these groups are
unabashedly 'bent discussion groups, set up as an association of 'bent drivers
and fellow travelers for the sharing of ideas, not foci of disputation as to
the general value of 'bents and their supporters.) And then...
>
> Kiss it off. I've ridden a recumbent, though only for a short distance.
> I've talked to a lot of 'bent riders and watched them when I've been
> riding around them. The case for them is tremendously over-stated by
> the recumbent group.
What sort of nonpolemic and objective statement is "Kiss it off"? A baiting
and argumentative start, I should say. And how much of a surprise should it be
that a recumbent group overstates (if it does, which I haven't figured out
yet) the case for the object of its enthusiasm? Try posting a message in favor
of President Clinton on the Republican National Committee site if you want to
explore the depth of partisanship. Overstating by the way is a relative term;
my experience is that writers on these lists try very hard not to mislead
newbies like me, and I don't feel the need to be protected against enthusiasm
by an uninvited naysayer, however unsupported by stated facts and references.
>
> 1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
> at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
> fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected (sic). I am sure that
> some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
It must not be overstating the case that you were unaffected by discomfort, or
that some 'bent riders practically fall off their bikes, or you certainly
would not say so. But even accepting your observation at face value, that some
upright riders are more comfortable at some unspecified distance of a century
than some 'bent riders does NOT prove or support the implication that all
'bents are not all that more comfortable than all uprights.
>
> 2) They do not have a speed advantage as far as I have been able
> to determine. They are faster in some ways than uprights and slower
> in others. My observation is that they probably average slower though
> not by much.
No time trials? No race results? No tables of data? O grave, where is thy
victory? O
scientific-observation-well-supported-by-factual-observations-rigorously-measured-and-fairly-reported,
where is thy sting?
>
> 3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
> result is that 'bents stop more often.
Unlike you, I have NEVER ridden a 'bent (though I plan to), so I am apparently
even more qualified to be objective. 'bent riders on both lists talk of
changing position often; are all such persons liars? How much more often do
'bents stop? No time trials? No race results? No tables of data? O grave, ...
>
> 4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
> to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
The average 'bent I see photographed with panniers makes Robert Persig's bike
look absolutely undernourished and undersupplied. Some come with wire
baskets... Riders talk of how much they can pack up for how long, with or
without trailers. Are all such persons liars? No tables of data? No comparison
studies of tours?
>
> 5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
> is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
Rough road riding is frequently alluded to on these lists. Are all such
persons liars? I cannot personally comment on the body english, as I've not
ridden one... can you?
>
> 6) Because they have a lower center of gravity they fall quicker when
> they do fall. People who ride them don't seem to fall very often so
> that isn't much of a complaint.
Babies have a lower center of gravity and they fall quicker... and get hurt
less... partly because of a shorter fall distance (applicable) and partly
because of less mass (not applicable). And if even you who offer it don't
think it's much of a complaint, what is the point of throwing it on the pile?
>
> As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
> who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
> normal upright. But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
> buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
> a positive item
Now there's an objective allusion if ever I saw one; only the infirm have a
place riding a 'bent--an abnormal 'bent as opposed to a "normal" upright;
another objective implication. Why not just come right out and say it straight
and to hell with this PC crap; real men, who of course are neither crippled
nor abnormal, ride uprights. And how does increased 'bent buying become a
negative item? That doesn't even parse (Jesse Helms translation for
Republicans: that dog won't hunt.)
There is a place to say this sort of thing; it seems like deliberately picking
a fight to put this out on a 'bent site. Kinda like walking into an Irish bar
on St. Patrick's Day wearing an orange tie. My dad drove a cab in Chicago
during the depression and did that one fine St. Paddy's day, we being
Scots-Irish Protestants and all, and he got the shit kicked out of him. All
bla...@flash.net did was invite jbr...@hpl.hp.com to go away rather than to
come into this bar spoiling for a fight. I'd say he got off light. And your
championing his cause is just piling on, also uninvited.
-phil torrance in princeton nj
Dr AJ Clune
Eleanor MacMaster (bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: - Ride in the rain for more than 5 miles
5 miles!
Bloody people people that live in dry climes, whinge, whinge, moan,
moan, don't know they are born they don't, when I were young....
:-)
Arthur
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Arthur Clune, Network Control Group, Department of Mathematics, |
| University of York. Tel/Fax 01904 433097 |
| http://biber.york.ac.uk/~arthur
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Potter
> cass...@apple.com (David Casseres) wrote:
[]
> > * He said it took a lot of training before his butt stopped hurting, since
> > he could never take his weight off it while riding.
I find that this occurs ONLY with the American style of bent with the
more-vertical seatback. Eurostyle is often to recline the seat about 45deg
so that about half the weight is on the long part supporting your back.
Some Eurobents have only a little sprout for the butt/crotch as MOST
weight is on back. I myself use the 45deg 50-50 approach and find
that I get ZERO fatigue buildup at the butt due to sitting on muscles
which are also used for pedalling. Basically, I know I use my butt
muscles a lot for power...I want very little in their way. 45deg gets
the job done. Also seems to soften the ride even more---the whole
hammock of the seatback takes the bumps and mellows them nicely.
I can still push into the seatback for power---any further recline
and I slide back in sprints or hillclimbing.
Dan Sullivan
David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In outpouring of consciousness known as <6hq3of$n1t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>>, tku...@diabloresearch.com spake thusly:
>>
>>Well, not to take anything away from recumbents, but I think that people
>>are buying them more out of ignorance than desire. There is a lot of
>>hype put out by 'bent enthusiasts
Hype is what commercial promoters put out. Enthusiasts put
out enthusiasm. Inasmuch as most advertising hype comes from
companies like Cannondale that do not even make recumbents,
and that most recumbent manufacturers do little more than
send flyers to bike shops, I see no credibility in the above
claim.
>>and I expect many of these 'bents to
>>put in more garage time than road time in rather short order
I don't know about that, especially compared to uprights. My
upright sat for years because it hurt my back to ride it. I
ride my recumbent daily except in bad weather, and my back
feels better when I have been riding than when I have not.
Over and over I see people with shiny, new, quality uprights
in their garages or basements, and I invite them to throw
their bikes into my van sometime and take a pleasure ride in
the country, and they rarely take me up on it.
>>as people
>>find that 'bents aren't any faster than uprights.
Recumbents are in fact faster than uprights, once one learns
how to handle them. They are banned from bike races because
racing 'bents they are so much faster that uprights would no
longer be competitive and it would be a completely different
race. However, most people ride recumbents for comfort and
convenience. The only serious downside I see for LWB
recumbents is that they take more room to store and are a
bitch to carry up steps on a daily basis.
Dan Sullivan
<pim...@pobox.com>
http://geolib.pair.com
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
Dan Sullivan
David Reid <da...@davita.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> So Recumbents are more comfortable on long rides. That makes
>>some sense. Just how much faster are recumbernts than a normal
>>upright?
>Depends, anything from not at all to lots. I save an average of about 30
>seconds on a 12 minute commute, the HPV hour record is about 48 miles as
>opposed to 33 for an upright.
>> I can see how they might be a lot faster on downhills
>>because of their aero advantage. But what about flat ground, or
>>going uphill?
>At least as fast on the flat but probably slower uphill, it's the
>overall effect that counts though. It's also very hard to judge as rider
>fitness plays such a big part, personally I have come to expect to
>overtake any other cyclist I encounter uphill or down, but then I used
>to do this on an upright too.
Recumbents are faster on hills, yet more difficult for the
new rider on steep hills. The reason is that recumbents are
more difficult to balance at extremely low speeds,
especially for the first ten miles or so of uphill climbing.
So, even though a recumbent rider has more power, balancing
problems do not allow him to take a leisurely pace in a very
low gear.
However, once a rider gets the hang of balancing at low
speeds, he can take any hill that he could have taken on an
upright. And, he can still wave at passing motorists, for
though his calves and thighs may be strained to the point of
torture, his upper body is still relaxed.
>> Can you ride a 'bent comfortably on a rough road?
>Yes, but with my above seat steering Kingcycle it can be hard to stay in
>the seat at high (30mph+ IME) speeds on rough roads.
And, recumbents are more likely to skitter out from under
the rider on loose gravel, because the rider is planted in
the seat and cannot use "body english" to maintain control.
This is also why low-speed balancing is trickier on a
recumbent.
Dan Sullivan
wsm...@one.net (Walter N. Smith) wrote:
>I have to admit that recumbents are not much faster than uprights, but
>they are so much more comfortable to ride that most people finnd that
>they put on more miles than ever before. Most of the 'benters who
>switch never go back to uprights. In my own case, after a year I was
>convinced enough that I sold my Masi Grand Criterium and have not
>ridden my Assenmacher tourng bike for four years. It is a shame to
>leave it hanging in the garage, but it is so uncomfortable to ride
>that it will probably just stay there.
I know of one person who bought a recumbent and went back to
uprights without ever having gotten the hang of his
recumbent. He put his used recumbent up for sale at a bike
resale shop. It was a homemade SWB (Short Wheel Base). I
test rode it, and it was much more skitterish, as SWB's are
reputed to be, but much faster and lighter than my LWB
Linear. I can see why a person would give up on such a bike,
even though it was fast as all get out.
Most people want a comfortable ride and the ability to rack
up miles without exhaustion. Well designed LWBs give both.
Speed is a secondary issue, but I think that LWBs are no
slouch on sustained speed either. They are slower off the
line due to their weight and some intricacies of pedalling
technique during rapid accelleration, but they are faster at
sustained speeds, due to the superiority of rythmic thigh
pumping over clenching the whole body, and due to the wind
resistance of the recumbent profile.
Dan Sullivan
wbl...@rapidnet.com (Warren Block) wrote:
>> How manoeverable is a recumbent compared to a normal upright?
>Again, it varies. A lot. There are SWBs with wheelbases as short or
>shorter than most uprights, and very long LWBs. There is also a wide
>variety in combinations of head angles and fork variables.
The above is true, but the big advantage for uprights in
terms of maneuverability is that, at slow speeds, one can
use body english to significant advantage on an upright.
>> Can you ride a recumbent off-road (trail),
>I've done that with mine (BikeE) on some pretty rough hiking trails. Fire
>roads are no problem. As with uprights, the limits are usually more in
>people's minds than in reality.
>> or jump a recumbent?
Don't even try. You are so planted in the seat of a
recumbent that you have no control other than that which you
exert throught the front wheel. The best you can do with
your body is to wave one hand in the air like a rodeo rider.
Recumbents are great on roads and on paved and semi-paved
biking trails, but just not suited for mountain bike trails
and hiking trails. There will never be a recumbent mountain
bike that is good for anything more than hopping low curbs
and surviving potholes.
Shiva Nataraja
> Recumbents are in fact faster than uprights, once one learns
> how to handle them.
I would think
it would be tough
to climb
pedaling with you feet
above your head
> They are banned from bike races because
> racing 'bents they are so much faster that uprights would no
> longer be competitive and it would be a completely different
> race.
I suspect that it has more to do with tradition
although your comment may have brought
a giggle or two from some racers
> most people ride recumbents for comfort
what I've seen too
with road bikes
one uses
upper body
abdominals
back
rear
legs
recumbents
are more legs?
Dan Sullivan
bla...@flash.net wrote:
>In article <6hr66n$r...@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>,
> jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
>> The next step is to lie down and relax on a recumbent. This is
>> largely parallel to broad saddles. Instead of gravity pushing the
>> rider down on his pedals, he gets to push off from his sweaty back.
>> It's like having a heated Camelback and no chance of changing position
>> by standing or riding no-hands on a conventional bicycle.
Most recumbents, like my Linear, which is one of he cheaper
ones, has an open nylon back. I never noticed my back
getting sweaty. Besides, I use up so much less energy on a
recumbent than on an upright that I sweat a lot less
overall. So if my back does get a little sweatier than the
rest of me on a recumbent, it is far less sweat than I would
have had over my whole body on an upright.
In any situation that requires serious pedal effort, the
upright rider stands up and tenses his entire upper body,
making it an extension of the frame so his leg muscles have
something to push against besides gravity. The recumbent
rider just pedals with his legs as before, without having to
use his upper body for such a non-productive purpose as
creating ridgidity.
>> Ultimately descending at speed is hazardous wherever there is no clear
>> view of the road ahead. There nay be a speed bump or its equivalent
>> in the pavement, something that could easily be absorbed by rising off
>> the saddle on a conventional bicycle, but it can throw the recumbent
>> and rider in the air.
This is true. On the other hand, recumbent riders do not go
head over teacups like upright riders do, and are far less
likely to sustain serious injury in a comparable spill.
Jerry Kraynick, owner of what is unanimously regarded as the
best bicycle parts store in the Pittsburgh area, does bike
tours almost every Sunday with serious bikers. One day two
years ago he lost it on his recumbent going down a big hill
at 50 mph. He broke his ankle. On an upright it would have
been his neck.
>>Then there is carrying the bicycle over a fence
>> or mud hole... it's hard to carry on the shoulder with one hand free,
>> or at all.
Absolutely true, but the recumbent is a road bike, not a
mountain bike. I rarely find fences running across roads,
and when I do, I assume that I am not allowed to be on the
other side anyhow.
>> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
> I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list and
>the HPV list.
That is his privilege, but the above things are common
misperceptions that are easy to refute. I haven't seen his
other posts as I only check this newsgroup intermittantly.
Dan Sullivan
jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
>I have heard only that recumbents are superior to conventional
>bicycles in practically every respect and that the people who don't
>use them are misguided or worse.
I think that is an overreaction. Recumbents are superior in
many ways, but not in all. If I had to carry my bike up a
lot of steps every day, or store it in my living room, or
frequently carry in on a rack behind a compact car, or ride
offroad, you couldn't give me a recumbent. But for pedalling
on normal streets and roads, a long wheel-based recumbent
can't be beat. It is not superior in every respect, but it
is far superior in many respects.
>In response I bring up some of the
>basic failings of recumbents and you get annoyed rather than refute
>what I propose.
He did indeed, although I just refuted what he quoted from
your post.
>In recent recumbent literature, I see that most recumbents have moved
>toward 20 inch wheels, apparently to address some of the major design
>problems. This does not improve ride quality.
You are entirely correct about ride quality being poorer
with smaller wheels. However the ride quality for LWB
recumbents is much better overall, and the smaller (rear)
wheels are to reduce length, as larger wheels have to be
locate behind, rather than under, the rider. I have an LWB
Linear, with a 27" rear wheel, but I have a van to carry it
in, and I am building a bike rack on the back that will
carry it vertically, so length is not a concern for me.
The Linear does fold into a compact size for carrying behind
cars, which is its main selling point. Still, I never fold
mine.
>Moulton put suspension
>on his bikes because bicycles with such small wheels need it.
>Suspension wasn't so much a feature as it was evidence of a problem.
It is a problem for all bikes, not just for recumbents.
Indeed, LWB recumbents with a rigid suspension are more
comfortable than uprights with a ridgid suspension. The
reason that uprights do not make much use of shock absorbing
suspensions is that such suspensions also absorb pedal
effort, as when one pushes one's weight off the seat, one
flexes the suspension. On a recumbent, pedal effort is
horizontal while suspension is vertical, and so recumbents
can make use of suspensions with less loss of pedal
efficiency.
Curtis L. Russell
Reputed is the correct term. I've ridden my Vision on a hilly century
without once feeling a sense of 'skittishness'. For those who like SWBs
and ride a well made SWB, the SWB is a comfortable ride that requires no
more than finger-tip control under most circumstances. You never 'hold'
your bars except when braking. And it isn't just someone trying to resolve
purchasing dissonances - my wife felt that way from the second she got on a
Vision and that is exactly why we bought them - the wheel disappears under
you, the view is great, but they are totally useless for exercising the
arms or wrists - you almost never use them. And I have trouble defining as
skittish something that requires almost no input in steering for the
majority of your riding day.
My LWB does not feel any less skittish to me, because basically I am
comfortable with USS and its hard to differentiate between different levels
of very low steering input required. Neither the Linear or the Vision are
skittish for me.
Riders CAN make them skittish. You can insist on oversteering the bike
forever. That is not a design problem as much as the rider not
accommodating the steering differences (wide handle bars, little input
required). This is different from, say, a track bike converted to road.
While some may get comfortable on such bikes, they nevertheless are not
designed to track like a road bike, and will require more steering input.
Having ridden a converted fixed gear track bike, various racing frames, a
custom tourer, various commuter bikes, a 'regular' tandem, a SWB, and a
LWB, and a SWB tandem recumbent, all except for the last for at least six
months, not just five or ten minutes, I do have at least my own experiences
to speak from.
Of course, some people feel better on the ASS LWBs. Just as I prefer USS
SWBs. But I think the practice of LWB owners to defend their recumbents by
knocking the SWBs is no different than the diamond frame riders attacking
all recumbents because they don't particularly care for them or the ten
minute test ride they had or from third hand anecdotal 'evidence'. The next
time you feel that all SWBs are skittish, take a good look at a
small-framed rider that comes in on one after a century, smiling from the
lack of neck, shoulder, and wrist pain. I know of two such riders - and I
can't see a person doing a century with arthritic hands on a skittish bike
that is going to get off smiling...
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
Dan Sullivan <pim...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<OlG11.66$Zp2.8...@news.sgi.net>...
> wsm...@one.net (Walter N. Smith) wrote:
...
> I know of one person who bought a recumbent and went back to
> uprights without ever having gotten the hang of his
> recumbent. He put his used recumbent up for sale at a bike
> resale shop. It was a homemade SWB (Short Wheel Base). I
> test rode it, and it was much more skitterish, as SWB's are
> reputed to be, but much faster and lighter than my LWB
> Linear. I can see why a person would give up on such a bike,
> even though it was fast as all get out.
...
Dan Sullivan
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>In article <6i2t31$vgi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
> bla...@flash.net wrote:
>> 2) I asked whether you had ridden a recumbent. You did not answer.
>Do you feel it necessary to ride a recumbent in order to understand
>them?
Yes, or at least to pontificate about them. Some of his flat
out assertions are just flat our wrong, even though one who
has not ridden remcumbents much might consider them to be
understandable conclusions.
>Jobst is an extremely competent cyclist that rides thousands
>of miles a year EVERY YEAR. He has ridden all over the world and tends
>to ride on terrain that would frighten most riders. He is also a
>competent mechanical engineer who can analyze any mechanism as simple
>as a recumbent at a glance. Unless you've stood on the roof of a
>building with a Tour de France stage winner, while the crowd below
>cheers, I wouldn't make such suggestions as requiring a person to
>ride a recumbent to understand them.
>> 3) You seem to cruise lists and pick fights. Is this another instance
>> of that process?
>You need to refute his statements not his motivations in this case.
I agree. The usenet is no place for the easily annoyed.
>> 4) All bikes are undergoing design refinements and major changes. Is
>> suspension on uprights "evidence of a problem?"
>The answer is YES! Full suspension on racers is understandable. Even on
>very upscale MTB's. But why would the average MTB rider want suspencion?
>In order to pay more for the bike, pay more for the maintenance and
>get virtually no benefit? Of COURSE it's a problem!
I have never ridden an upright with full suspension except
for an old Murray (circa 1940) that was as heavy as a truck.
However, people at mountain bike shops caution that
suspensions on uprights absorb pedal effort, and recommend
against them except where they are absolutely needed.
However, pedal effort loss is not a problem with suspension
on recumbents, as I posted elsewhere on this thread.
>> 5) It is virtually impossible to change wheel sizes on an upight and
>> accomplish anything meaningful while it is pretty common on recumbents. Your
>> observation on the subject is meaningless.
>Huh? Moulton's and Bike Fridays have small wheels. Bike Fridays in particular
>seem to ride identically to normal wheel sizes. Seems to me that they
>accomplish quite a bit by changing wheel sizes.
I think he meant post hoc changes on an existing frame, but
I do not see much relevance to that.
Marshall Dermer
In article <01bd737d$4a654920$5104...@russellc.clark.net> "Curtis L.
I have a Vision R-40. When I was traveling down hill at about 25 mph with
THIN TIRES I found the bent skittish. When I started using wider tires the
problem disappeared even when the stearing is set at its most sensitive
level, that is, the tie rod is set at the outer hole.
Hope this helps.
--Marshall
Marshall Lev Dermer/ Department of Psychology/ University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee/ Milwaukee, WI 53201/ der...@uwm.edu
http://www.uwm.edu/people/dermer
"Life is just too serious to be taken entirely seriousyl!"
Dan Sullivan
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>In article <6hu2jc$5sa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> bla...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>> I have only heard you, (Jobst Brandt) say negative things on this list
>> and the HPV list.
>> If you don't like recumbents, unsubscribe and quit bothering the rest
>> of us.
>> Your observations are overstated, at best. It would seem to me that you
>> haven't ridden a recumbent.
>And if he has ridden a recumbent and he still has the same opinion
>you still wouldn't want him saying negative things on 'your'
>newsgroups.
Nothing like answerin an ad hominem with an ad hominem to
degenerate the ratio of light to heat. His comment was an
unfortunate reaction. Let's let it go at that.
>Kiss it off. I've ridden a recumbent, though only for a short distance.
It shows.
>I've talked to a lot of 'bent riders and watched them when I've been
>riding around them. The case for them is tremendously over-stated by
>the recumbent group.
Perhaps, but jobst's criticisms were even more overstated.
>1) They aren't all that more comfortable. I've gotten into rest stops
>at the same time as 'bents on centuries and seem some of them practically
>fall off of their bikes while I have been uneffected.
That is probably a function of your condition relative to
theirs rather than a function of the bikes. Recumbents tend
to be purchased by older, less athletic riders for whom
comfort is a priority. I am 48 years old and at least 40
pounds overweight. I take people who are about half my age
with me on rides and I always have to wait for them, either
because they are tired or because the seat hurts. These
people are not serious bikers, but they are certainly in
better shape in their 20s than I am in my 40s.
> I am sure that
>some people find them comfortable. I find an upright comfortable.
Most people find the style of bike they have ridden all
their lives more comfortable than the style they have ridden
for just a few miles. Also, you didn't say what kind of
recumbent you had ridden. SWBs give up comfort and stability
for speed and agility, and some of the cheap recumbents just
don't cut it.
>2) They do not have a speed advantage as far as I have been able
>to determine. They are faster in some ways than uprights and slower
>in others. My observation is that they probably average slower though
>not by much.
The riders are slower if they are in poorer shape than you,
but are also slower because they are in no hurry. Why rush
when you are sitting down on a comfortable seat instead of
either standing or sitting with a hard bar against your
crotch, when your natural neck posture gives you a panoramic
view of the area instead of a view of the pavement in front
of your front wheel, and when your entire upper body is
relaxed instead of straining to give your legs something to
pedal against?
>3) 'Bents don't allow position changes, standing or stretching. The
>result is that 'bents stop more often.
It is true that they don't allow position changes, but they
start out with the most natural position. My experience is
that recumbent riders don't stop as often and don't want to
stop for as long. Upright riders who only ride occasionally
find that on long trips they get saddle sore in about two
hours and need long rests for their tailbones to recover.
Riders of good LWB recumbents, including the most occasional
riders, get saddle sore after about 4 hours and recover in
about 5 minutes.
>4) 'Bents aren't really effective for touring unless you pull a trailer
>to carry your load. Not that a trailer is a bad idea.
The front wheel of my Linear LWB does not take well to tour
bags, as recumbants put more demand on front wheel response
for balance at lower speeds, and because my underseet
steering involves a drag link to the front wheel, which does
in fact reduce steering control slightly. (athough I would
never go back to overseat steering, and Linear quit making
overseat steering after almost everyone who had ordered it
called them back to see if they could change to underseat.)
However, 27" my rear wheel takes all the same paraphernalia
that a normal bike would take, and I have been able to
attatch far more stuff over and under the long center beam
than I ever would have hauled on the front wheel of an
upright. I do have a BoB Yak trailer, which is wonderful on
a recumbent, but which is no doubt wonderful on an upright
as well.
I would note, however, that the more junk you are toting
around with you, the more important the bikes power
configuration becomes compared to its weight. So, if by
touring you mean hauling your week's personal effects with
you, recumbents have a huge advantage.
>5) Off-road or rough road riding is out of the question on a 'bent. It
>is virtually impossible to use body english to keep your balance.
You are absolutely right here when referring to mountain
bike trails and to loose gravel trails. However, I have
ridden the C&O Canal trail on my Linear, and it was a much
better ride than on an upright street bike. The C&O is
course gravel packed into the mud, and the major problem for
street bikes is the uncomfortable bumpiness, not steering
stability. The real riding drawback for recumbents is
steering stabilty on bad surfaces
>6) Because they have a lower center of gravity they fall quicker when
>they do fall. People who ride them don't seem to fall very often so
>that isn't much of a complaint.
When you say they fall "quicker," you create some ambiguity,
as they hit the ground quicker. That is like saying someone
who falls off a one story building falls quicker than
someone who falls of a two-story building. People who fall
with their recumbents do not fall as far, and they do not
land on their necks. When you lose your balance on an
upright, your feet don't come near to the ground until you
have in fact fallen, but if you lose your balance on a
recumbent, you can put one foot to the ground while you are
till in your seat.
I do tend to take corners less aggressively on my recumbent
in order to avoid loss of traction due to road
imperfections, but then I do everything less aggressively on
my recumbent.
>As I said, recumbents certainly have a place. There are many people
>who have physical infirmities that prevent them from riding a
>normal upright.
I am one of those people, but there is a much bigger place
for them than that. On good rode surfaces, the better LWB
recumbents are just plain more comfortable and more energy
efficient than the uprights. Off, road, they suck, no doubt
about it.
>But if there is a large upwelling of 'bent
>buying I expect that it will turn into a negative rather than
>a positive item.
We shall see. I think the biggest danger is a rash of cheap,
poorly designed recumbents. On the other hand, most of the
high cost of recumbents stems from the fact that they are
made in small quantities. If a quality mass marketer like
Cannondale were to enter the recumbent market it would
change everything.
Dan Sullivan
"Michael Prybell" <mpry...@softhome.com> wrote:
>I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
>Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
Recumbents are strictly road bikes. If you need a mountain
bike, you need an upright.
Adam Kightley
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
> In article <1998042823...@p562-2.wantree.com.au>#1/1,
> ga...@oceandigital.com.au (Gary King) wrote:
> > 'Bents are *made* for touring. There are more places to store gear. Bags
> > go under, hang off the sides and ontop. On the other hand, an upright
> > needs a trailer.
>
> Urr, I'd like to see that 'bent.
The seat back allows for a great deal of loading over the rear wheel,
more than is feasible simply loading on top of a rear rack.
> You miss the point. The higher center of gravity of the upright
> causes them to fall much slower and so you can correct easier. I'm
> not certain that that is a valid argument because I don't hear of
> 'bent riders falling all that often. So maybe a 'bent falls slow
> enough for the reactions of a normal rider and the slower fall
> of an upright isn't important.
My personal experience is that riding a recumbent after only riding
uprights for a while feels hugely safer than the converse.
> Then why all of the BS about recumbents? If they are so great then
> they will sell themselve without the hooplah.
Sadly, that's not the way things work. A cursory inspection of the
recent history of technology in the marketplace shows that great
innovations are often crushed by and ignored in favour of the mediocre.
AJK
Warren Block
[Newsgroups trimmed]
Shiva Nataraja (sh...@indra.net) wrote:
> > Recumbents are in fact faster than uprights, once one learns
> > how to handle them.
>
> I would think
> it would be tough
> to climb
> pedaling with you feet
> above your head
Thought and
reality
can vary
Besides, it
would have to be
a very steep hill
> > They are banned from bike races because
> > racing 'bents they are so much faster that uprights would no
> > longer be competitive and it would be a completely different
> > race.
>
> I suspect that it has more to do with tradition
> although your comment may have brought
> a giggle or two from some racers
I think you're right.
> > most people ride recumbents for comfort
>
> what I've seen too
>
> with road bikes
> one uses
> upper body
> abdominals
> back
> rear
> legs
>
> recumbents
> are more legs?
For me, it's the legs (including muscles that I had apparently only rarely
used in upright riding), rear (glutes, again, more than on an upright),
back (for some reason I haven't yet fully understood), shoulders, and
biceps and deltoids in the arms. The last three are related to pulling on
the bars, which works on my BikeE, but may not be as useful on a
low-steering recumbent.
--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
http://extra.newsguy.com/~wblock
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <xTG11.69$Zp2.9...@news.sgi.net>,
pim...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
>
> >I have heard only that recumbents are superior to conventional
> >bicycles in practically every respect and that the people who don't
> >use them are misguided or worse.
>
> I think that is an overreaction. Recumbents are superior in
> many ways, but not in all.
But we just saw Casseres describe the beliefs of a rider who was in
the upper echelon of the Ultra-marathoners. What was the reaction
from several 'bent riders? That this rider didn't know what the hell
he was talking about. That they (the posters) had a better idea of
what advantages recumbents had and that this upstart who only finished
in the top part of a long distance event simply needed setting straight.
The marathoner (Excuse me for forgetting his name, but he used to post
here quite often) tried both styles of bikes in difficult, long distance
events and prefered uprights. Sorry, but that is the way MOST people
see the question. Recumbents may be superior in some respects, but
they too are a compromise -- 12 feet of chain anyone? Some people
will settle in one direction in a compromise and others in the opposite
direction. In the case of recumbents, most people have fallen on the
side of the upright. If you prefer to believe that it is because the
average person is stupid, uneducated and tends to "follow the herd"
that is your opinion. But what if recumbents were to suddenly become the
majority two-wheeled vehicle? Would the public then be so stupid?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Curtis L. Russell
No, they were, in fact, first banned many years ago when a lower category
rider blew away the hour record on an early recumbent. The UCI's response
was to codify bicycle design for racing to remove recumbents altogether, a
business they have been in seriously ever since. Since the issue hasn't
been revisited, you'd have to say that all recumbents have been effectively
banned because one turned out to be too fast long ago. (BTW, the standards
were effectively instituted retroactively to deny that the recumbent was a
bicycle for UCI purposes and the record was never recognized.)
I don't get as bothered by this as some recumbent riders, and as a former
USCF official I would have mixed feelings about a race of SWBs with the
crank out front (I think it would be a crowd pleaser, though, but possibly
for the wrong reasons). But if recumbents were permitted in cat time
trials, they would decimate the fields, even as unfaired. Combine the
design efforts that went into the bladed uprights with the best of the
recumbents and a whole lot of records would fall - again. A low-racer
recumbent on a record-level course (decent wind protection and near flat
conditions with a good, fast surface) would be extremely hard to beat.
--
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD
Just a Cyclist...
Shiva Nataraja <sh...@indra.net> wrote in article
...
Jeff DelPapa
In article <01bd7379$a69d36c0$195cd8cd@708661617>,
Shiva Nataraja <sh...@indra.net> wrote:
>> Recumbents are in fact faster than uprights, once one learns
>> how to handle them.
>
>I would think
>it would be tough
>to climb
>pedaling with you feet
>above your head
Even the "high" bottom bracket models have the legs level with the
hips. You would run out of tire traction before they rotated above
the head.
>
>> They are banned from bike races because
>> racing 'bents they are so much faster that uprights would no
>> longer be competitive and it would be a completely different
>> race.
>
>I suspect that it has more to do with tradition
>although your comment may have brought
>a giggle or two from some racers
>
Nope, its real. In the 1930's a rider considerd "second tier" by the
name of Faure, rode a Mochet "velomobile" to a new hour record. Some
months later, when they ran out of ways to postpone things, a meeting
was held, and the record was struck, on the grounds that they didn't
use a bicycle. They went on to define the bicycle in ways that were
upright specific (specifiying that the bottom bracket had to be within
a fairly small horizontal distance from a plumb line dropped from the
nose of the saddle.
This activity continues -- remember Obree, and the retroactive ban of
his original arm position? or the sillyness banning the Y bikes of
the postal service team 20 minutes before the start of last years
paris-roubaix? Telecoms time trial bikes before the TDF prolouge?
The UCI claims it is trying to keep costs down, and the focus on the
engine rather than the drivetrain. Unless they go to uniformly issued
bikes, it likely means that more money will get spent so that you
aren't behind in your cheating -- subtle reshaping of the tubes for
the .1% lower drag than the allowed round, etc...
The motor racing sorts have gone to series ownership of the vehicle in
the "budget" classes, once they discovered that well funded teams were
quite happy to spend a lot hand picking stock parts, to get an edge in
what was supposed to be a budget class. At one point you could spend
$40,000 on a "absoultely stock" 1600 cc vw engine. -- carefully
selecting from a pile of new parts to find the one where the
tolerances are most in your favor, then building the result to an
accuracy that wasn't present in the original dies.
<dp>
tku...@diabloresearch.com
In article <6i7hgu$lv5$1...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
ada...@central.susx.ac.uk (Adam Kightley) wrote:
>
> A cursory inspection of the
> recent history of technology in the marketplace shows that great
> innovations are often crushed by and ignored in favour of the mediocre.
I'd be interested in a good example of that.
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <6i4q5m$ag2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>, tku...@diabloresearch.com spake thusly:
>
>Well, I don't know. What are we talking about? I see some upright
>rider limping around and holding their butts and complaining and
>they are advised to ride a recumbent and get rid of that pain. Then
>I see a recumbent rider doing the same thing and he's told that he
>has to get more fit. Seems a double standard to me.
>
I suppose most of my experience of this sort of thing is from people
complaining of pain on newsgroups. IME upright riders complain of back,
hand arm and butt pain, for which they are told to adjust things or get
a recumbent, and knee pain for which they are told to adjust there seat
or use different gears. recumbent riders only seem to complain about
knee pain for which they are also told to adjust their seat or use
different gears.
>Recumbents CAN have a smaller frontal area and better drag coefficient
>than an upright. Granted. But the average recumbent doesn't. And the
>machines that were used for these records aren't practical for real
>use.
>
The hour record was held at about 47mph by a Kingcycle for a while,
apart from the sock fairing (which may also be handy for keeping the
rain off), this is the machine I use to commute, for which it is far
more comfortable and practical than my old upright.
>Yes, but a recumbent is basically a paved road machine. And that was
>my point. The very idea of a mountain 'bent is pretty funny don't you
>think?
>
So is a conventional racer or tourer, this is not generally regarder as
a problem.
>Well, I don't mean to say that recumbents aren't legitimate bicycles,
>but they really are a niche market even if that niche is growing.
>Not that I might not get one, hell I've got so many bicycles not that
>the problem is room, not desire. :-)
>
I can't really see how a bike suitable for all types of road riding can
be a niche product.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
The cogno-intellectual implications of this research create a whole new
paradigm for the subject.
Diane Benham
In article <848D6967F771BC1A.941898EB...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
qrj...@nveznvy.arg (Charles) writes:
>Someone asked why bents weren't selling themselves if they were so good.
>Perhaps if the racing organizations allowed bents in the competitions,
>they would.
If bent freaks want to race, they can start their own organization.
Besides, how many people who ride normal bikes race or are interested
in racing? I'd say it's a fairly low percentage. I'd say at least
95% of the bikes sold in the Lexington (KY) area are used for
transportation.
Diane
d...@pop.uky.edu
kra...@mailexcite.com
In article <6i81e0$pfj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
tku...@diabloresearch.com wrote:
>
> In article <6i7hgu$lv5$1...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
> ada...@central.susx.ac.uk (Adam Kightley) wrote:
> >
> > A cursory inspection of the
> > recent history of technology in the marketplace shows that great
> > innovations are often crushed by and ignored in favour of the mediocre.
>
> I'd be interested in a good example of that.
I feel an impending Microsoft thread in the works...
Jeff DelPapa
In article <6i81e0$pfj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<tku...@diabloresearch.com> wrote:
>In article <6i7hgu$lv5$1...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
> ada...@central.susx.ac.uk (Adam Kightley) wrote:
>>
>> A cursory inspection of the
>> recent history of technology in the marketplace shows that great
>> innovations are often crushed by and ignored in favour of the mediocre.
>
>I'd be interested in a good example of that.
>
MS-DOS. At least the RT-11 that inspired it had multiple processes.
Intel CPUS. Programming languages that have the programmer doing
explicit allocation and de-allocation. Go search the web for Dick
Gabriel's "Worse is better" essay.
On the bicycle, there are lots of bits that are marginal in strength,
but replacements didn't make it. (like the pedal attachment, which is
a bit smaller than it could be, and thus the tendency for cranks to
break near the pedal eye). The half round shape used by most brakes
is not the most efficient structurally.
In the consumer realm, VHS beat out beta, despite beta's higher
resolution.
In this world, cheaper and earlier beats out better almost all the
time.
<dp>
cyc...@bikeroute.com
(kewl stuff deleted)
THX for the above Jeff. There were also a lot of other factors at work
here. U might want to take a look at:
http://www.bikeroute.com/WhyBentLong.html
The shorter version has pictures including the feared VeloCar (that cause
the ban) at:
http://www.bikeroute.com/WhyBent.htm
--
Attack with L@ve!!
,__ _,
\ |-~~---___ | \
| M a r t i n K r i e g ~---, _/ >
/Director: Int'l Bike Route Directory ~~/ /~| ,'
| 77: Coma/Paralysis/Clinical Death ~) __- \,
/ '79: TransAm Vet Upright - '86: TransAm Vet Recumbent Bicycle,-'
| '94: A W A K E A G A I N Author /_-',~
| http://www.BikeRoute.com/awake.html {
Momentum For The N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y
TransAm w/us in 2000: Cycle America http://www.BikeRoute.com/
'-,_ __ \
`~'~ \ ,~~~~-~~~~~~~~~, \
\/~\ /~~~`---` | \
\ / \ |
\ | '\'
cyc...@bikeroute.com
In article <dklEs3...@netcom.com>, d...@netcom.com (Douglas K Landau) wrote:
> yahoo! dude i just bought a ryan vanguard - they RIP!
> rode it to work the other day for the first time - 40 miles
> each way, passing uprights like they were standing still,
> (ok, except one) and when i got off i was hardly even tired and
> was ready to do it again. Plus i didnt want to eat like a horse
> when i got there or when i got home. I think you save tons of
> energy by sitting down and leaning back.
>
In case any of u don't recongize Doug Landau's name, he's the guy that led
the charge here a while ago to get a memorial together for Jeff Stenwedle,
that cyclist who got run over by a gravel truck.
I wanted to also speak to Wayne Luick's desire to actually ride one here
in the SF Bay Area.
CVC Recumbents in SF: lss...@jps.net
TWC in Walnut Creek: t...@sj.bigger.net
Easy Racer in Watsonville (mfr): TOOE...@aol.com
Haluzak in Santa Rosa (mfr): sidw...@pacbell.net
Rotator in Sata Rosa (mfrs): rot...@neteze.com
A Bent 4 Rent in Seaside: m...@abent4rent.com
Garners Pro Bike in Redwood City and Palo ALto: mikeg...@aol.com
Bicycle Outfitter in Los Altos: bikeo...@aol.com,
Surrey, Bikes & Blades at Stow Lake in Golden Gate Park:free...@syv.com
Zach Kaplan in Marin County: zaka...@earthlink.net
Go to http://www.bikeroute.com and use the search button there to find
webs for all of the above
Michael Prybell
I agree, but someone else in this thread said that gravel roads and single
track are "easy" on a bent. I really , really doubt that. Otherwise I have
no problems with bents. The only complaints I have with a few recumbent
riders is that on a some century rides, I've seen a few of them that don't
know how to track a straight line, and they tend to be all over the road.
Are recumbents less stable then uprights? Or are the people on these
recumbents just inexperianced? I can understand the swervy nature of the
person on an upright that rides his bike twice a year, but these guys on the
bents look like they do some riding, as far as gear and equipment go. Hence
the question above.
--
=============================================
Life is like good singletrack. It has it's painful
moments, but for the most part it's a great time !!!
Hammer On, Mike. mpry...@softhome.net
=============================================
Dan Sullivan wrote in message ...
Casey Kerrigan
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
> I don't get as bothered by this as some recumbent riders, and as a
> former USCF official I would have mixed feelings about a race of SWBs with
> the crank out front (I think it would be a crowd pleaser, though, but
> possibly for the wrong reasons). But if recumbents were permitted in cat time
> trials, they would decimate the fields, even as unfaired. Combine the
> design efforts that went into the bladed uprights with the best of the
> recumbents and a whole lot of records would fall - again. A low-racer
> recumbent on a record-level course (decent wind protection and near
> flat conditions with a good, fast surface) would be extremely hard to beat.
Actually short wheelbase bents have been USCF legal for several years now. Any
bike with an overall length of 2 meters or less is a USCF legal bike. Dispite
the fact that SWBs of 2 meters or less have been USCF legal I haven't seen any
entering race ( mass start or time trial events).
Casey
Jeff Potter
Michael Prybell wrote:
[]
> no problems with bents. The only complaints I have with a few recumbent
> riders is that on a some century rides, I've seen a few of them that don't
> know how to track a straight line, and they tend to be all over the road.
> Are recumbents less stable then uprights? Or are the people on these
> recumbents just inexperianced? I can understand the swervy nature of the
I suppose quite a few benters aren't experienced with group riding.
I can ride my fullfair bent in a rotating paceline, rock solid line, even
in gusty conditions. I can bump other bikes without nervousness and
resist being pushed when teasing racers grab at my tail or nose.
Actually with my fullfairing and disks there's nothing to snag another
rider, no bar to hook or spoke to put a pedal into. I get along fine
in tight quarters with uprighties. A good rider is a good rider.
A good bent rider wins over upright racer types.
Many bikes, each has its strongpoint.
What I like about HPV/bent development is the wide variety of
results and performance change available to the basic concept.
I'd say modern upright road bikes vary in performance by about
5% thru all their variety. Not much. With bents you get such a
wide variety of configs to choose from. ---With mine, just switching
from aboveseat steering to underseat is a night and day difference.
USS is a total blast! The MOST relaxing smilemaker. But ASS is usually
faster. Basically, what I need is welding gear and some more time.
I'd really love to create a couple nice bents and improve my fullfair.
--
Jeff Potter j...@glpbooks.BADMAIL.com delete '.BADMAIL' to reply
***"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Magazine of DIY Adventure and Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... with new bookstore & bulletin board
Gml...@scvnet.com
Tho X. Bui wrote:
>
> Someone wrote:
> >
> > I really would like to see somebody on a bent ride some technical trails.
> > Gravel roads and offroad trails are 2 very different things..
>
>
> :-)
>
> This thread sure brings out a lot of emotions, silly ones, IMO.
> Recumbents, MTB's, Road bikes, unicycles, they all have their
> purpose in life. I think y'all should try them all and form your
> own opinions. At anyrate, I'll start a list of experiences that
> must be lived through for the compleat syclist (in a totally random
> order, and in my completely scientific and unbiased opinion):
>
> 1. Do a time trial
Done it.
> 2. Ride a fixed gear
Yep
> 3. build a wheel
Quite a few
> 4. Descend on a recumbent
Check.
> 5. try a tricycle (must be the kind with 2 wheels on back)
Sure did. Loved it! But then my daddy backed his Nash over it...
> 6. Jump a log
Does doing it on an XR600R count?
> 7. Trackstand at a stop sign (falling off optional)
For that special thrill, do it on a big street motorcycle!
> 8. Take that special someone on a tandem ride
Haven't done that one yet. Anyone have a tandem 'bent I can borrow? :)
George