recumbent video
ryanc...@comcast.net
This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
ever was, I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
Daedalus project engineers.
Dick Ryan
Tom Sherman
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> ever was,
Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
reign.
> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
> Daedalus project engineers.
>
> Dick Ryan
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
Robert Maskill
An interesting video, found it of interest as I have not really looked
at the recumbent before.
Thanks for posting it and the link
Robert
Jay
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fiukid$oh8$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
On the Internet, one can be whomever...
J.
Paul Myron Hobson
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago...
Man. Are you still as uniformed about the dangers of cycling as you
were then?
--
\\paul
broken collar bone/fractured free since 1982
ryanc...@comcast.net
I take it that the riding in Boston traffic appeared dangerous to you.
I can assure you it wasn't, I doubt that I went over fifteen miles per
hour during the ride. The camera perhaps makes the clearances between
the bike and the traffic look tighter than it is. If you want to see
some dangerous riding check out some of the bike messenger videos.
Dick Ryan
Paul Myron Hobson
> On Dec 2, 11:33 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> ryancyc...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago...
>> Man. Are you still as uniformed about the dangers of cycling as you
>> were then?
>>
>> --
>> \\paul
>> broken collar bone/fractured free since 1982
>
> I take it that the riding in Boston traffic appeared dangerous to you.
> I can assure you it wasn't, I doubt that I went over fifteen miles per
> hour during the ride.
Boston traffic didn't look dangerous at all. I was referring to the
"common injuries such as broken collar bones and fractured skulls."
Cycling, upright or 'bent, simply ain't that hazardous.
\\paul
It's Chris
sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
whole ride. Upright's let you change more, reducing stiffness.
- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
DougC
> The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
> sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
> whole ride. Upright's let you change more, reducing stiffness.
>
With recumbents (and assuming the bike fits you properly) there
basically is no stiffness to alleviate--at least for the first three or
four hours or so. And by that time you're going to legitimately need a
bathroom break anyway.
You don't have to do the "45 minutes on, 15 minutes off" routine that
you see with uprights. You know the one, where cyclists stop and drink a
bit and stand around to rest their "legs"... (-if their legs are tired,
why not sit down?!?!? Because the only place they have to SIT hurts
their ASS-)
~
Chalo
>
> Dick Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Recumbent video
> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> > ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.
You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
fully account for my impression. As a member of a chopper and
tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
did.
I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
that safety bikes were so quickly adopted. At best, that means that
'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
Chalo
Paul O
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
>
> Chalo
And as the flames climbed high into the night, To light the sacrificial
rite.
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the flame war started...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
It's Chris
>With recumbents (and assuming the bike
>fits you properly) there basically is no
>stiffness to alleviate--at least for the first
>three or four hours or so. And by that
>time you're going to legitimately need
>bathroom break anyway.
>You don't have to do the "45 minutes on,
>15 minutes off" routine that you see with
>uprights. You know the one, where
>cyclists stop and drink a bit and stand
>around to rest their "legs"... (-if their legs
>are tired, why not sit down?!?!? Because
>the only place they have to SIT hurts
>their ASS-)
To each his (or her) own. I wasn't saying it was better or worse, just
commenting on why I personally don't find them comfortable. I can't stay
in the same position for too long, regadless of how comfortable the
chair.
And I usually go 100-120 minutes between rest breaks, for what it's
worth. And you're right. bike fit has more to do with comfort than any
other factor.
Chalo
>
> The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
> sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
> whole ride.
With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
want to ride with you.
Chalo
Paul O
Another nice thing about a sports car is that you can easily complete a
century ride in less than 1 hour and 40 minutes... ;-)
(Actually, pretty much any type of car is capable of doing that.)
victo...@gmail.com
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.
I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
it.
I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
USS steering system it had.
So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
may have ridden.
...
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
tired urban commuter or trail bike.
Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).
It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.
Please give it one more chance.
Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
overcome:
- adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)
- inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding
- difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
are not designed properly
Joe Bernard
wrote:
Hey Chalo,
Get on a RANS Rocket, then tell us what you think. The SWB design
mimics the lively feel of a DF quite nicely, and the kinda-upright-for-
a-bent riding position works well in urban settings. If you were able
to control a Bike E at all, the low-speed handling of the Rocket will
be a revelation to you. I'm not saying you'll like it better than DFs,
but I think your overall impression of recumbent design will improve.
My first bent ride was a rental Bike E and I liked it enough to want
to know more, but the LWB Sun EZ-Sport and SWB Rocket I ended up with
are both vastly superior. But what do I know? In the words of the
immortal and suddenly lucid Ed Dolan, I'm old and decrepit [at 45] and
just want to be comfy as I slowly pedal by.
DougC
>
> With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
> want to ride with you.
>
> Chalo
Yea but in that regard is a recumbent any worse than an upright bike?
I'd say maybe a /tiny/ bit perhaps, but honestly, both chances are about
the same most days.....
~
Roger Zoul
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fdd812a-4c19-4a0f...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>> >
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.
Seems to.
As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.
So? Just because you got soured doesn't prove anything.
>
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
HPVs.
At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors.
That's just steer nonsense.
But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of them
if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair chance.
>
> Chalo
Zoot Katz
wrote:
That's when a longtail bike comes in handy.
The Xtracycle has provided transportation for two impromptu dates and
done taxi service a few times too.
Sober passengers are easier to carry than drunks.
--
zk
Edward Dolan
"Roger Zoul" <roger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:re15j.218$Aw4...@newsfe07.lga...
>
> "Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8fdd812a-4c19-4a0f...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
> trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
> HPVs.
>
> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors.
>
> That's just steer nonsense.
>
> But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
> recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
> various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of
> them if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair
> chance.
Chalo makes some damn good points about the diversity of recumbent design
being a major problem. Surely there is a best design for a recumbent just as
there was for the upright. Uprights got it right almost from the beginning
and there has been no change in the design from that day forward. However,
this is not the case with recumbents. Design is all over the place.
Something is drastically wrong!
I suggest we listen to posters like Chalo. He can give us some insight into
the problems with reucmbents that we are too blind to see.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
DougC
Yea but when it comes to dates, I prefer the drinking ones. I find the
conversation is shorter and more to the point.
~
ryanc...@comcast.net
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> Chalo
Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
recumbents a curiosity?
Dick Ryan
Tom Sherman
This would be good advice, except for one small, er large, problem.
Chalo is 2.05 meters tall and has a mass of about 150 kg (at last
report), which makes him larger than your average NFL tackle. Chalo will
NOT fit properly on a RANS Rocket or practically any other production
recumbent. An XL Lightning P-38 with a longer boom MIGHT be acceptable,
or if Freddy Markham would build a custom Tour Easy with larger diameter
tubing and extended wheelbase.
I am not surprised at his size that Chalo finds the handling or
recumbents that are designed for much smaller people to be poor.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.
It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when
Chalo's size is taken into account.
> As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.
Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension
bicycle shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
past (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
> At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
and the great amount of misinformation about.
Ryan Cousineau
<ef736741-f13b-43c9...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"ryanc...@comcast.net" <ryanc...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Chalo Colina wrote:
[...]
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a variety
of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers almost
got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. Dick Ryan got it wrong with
his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as there
was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over the
map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> the great amount of misinformation about.
Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure them
out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very many
recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents are
for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
Now if geniuses like Dick Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like all
the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute abomination
of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent manufacturers
could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a bad
idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Roger Zoul
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj4ud1$hnl$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by
> all means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that
> all bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better
> than others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
> different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
> narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.
All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference here
and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.
Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes. Trikes are a special
breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.
But 2-wheel recumbents differ from one another in the extreme. Consequently
it only attracts characters like you and me who do not mind all these
differences, but the broad mass of folks do not care for all this variety.
It tells them they are dealing with an immature industry or even one that
has gone nuts.
Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
population. The real narrow-mindedness exists with the designers and
manufacturers of recumbents, each and everyone of whom thought that their
confounded design was the best without taking any notice of what was already
out there in the marketplace. A more narrow-minded bunch of stubborn bullies
you will never meet in your life. Hells Bells, there can only be one best
recumbent design, or do not words have any meaning for you.
All those recumbent manufacturers who have failed deserved to have fail and
I do not have an ounce of sympathy for any of them. Not only did they design
badly, but the prices they charged for their product was sky-high. The
public was quite right to ignore the whole miserable bunch of them.
victo...@gmail.com
...
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.
Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.
Olebiker
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Edward Dolan
"Olebiker" <ddu...@tfn.net> wrote in message
news:4ea238df-0182-4100...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I suspect
you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
provided you ride a lot.
The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it into
your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
because of the discomfort factor.
Chalo
>
> Dick Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > , the recumbent
> > > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> > country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> > approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> > recumbents a curiosity?
>
Along with Rideable Bicycle Replicas of Alameda, CA:
Bad ideas don't usually go away; mostly they just go nowhere.
Chalo
Edward Dolan
<victo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db8b2f88-87e5-426d...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Well Hells Bells, then it is not possible to say anything about anything, is
it? Good Grief ... all that is required to come to some sensible conclusions
about anything is just a bit of rigor. I don't know how some folks can be
such marshmallows!
Uprights are the universal bicycle. There can be no doubt about that at all.
Recumbents are designed for comfort. They give you a seat instead of a
saddle. You cannot be comfortable on an upright unless you are young and
physically fit. If you are old and decrepit, you need a recumbent if you
still want to ride a bike.
There! See how easy it is to actually say something!
Olebiker
> "Olebiker" <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote in message
I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
have a problem.
I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
I love riding a wedgie.
Edward Dolan
>> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
>> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
>> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I
>> suspect
>> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
>> provided you ride a lot.
>>
>> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it
>> into
>> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
>> because of the discomfort factor.
>
> have a problem.
>
> I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
> I love riding a wedgie.
I cannot ride an upright for more than an hour at a time. The back, neck and
shoulder pain is just too much. My cardiovascular fitness was always pretty
good, but I neglected my muscles (other than my leg muscles). Being able to
ride an upright for many hours at a time has to do with overall physical
fitness, not just the legs and cardiovascular fitness. You are doing fine -
so far!
Joe Bernard
> "Olebiker" <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uprights are highly efficient devices easily carried on a car. They're
also torture racks. Recumbents are highly efficient and very
comfortable devices which are a nightmare to transport. Until a bent
can easily be thrown on a trunk rack on the back of a '92 Corolla,
they will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity to most
cyclists.
Tom Sherman
> In article
> <ef736741-f13b-43c9...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "ryanc...@comcast.net" <ryanc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> , the recumbent
>>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
>> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
>> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
>> recumbents a curiosity?
>>
>> Dick Ryan
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
>
radio and newspapers.
Tom Sherman
> ...
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
> different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
> narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.
Upright bicycles are fine for those who can ride them comfortably, which
may well be a majority of the population. Certainly, the upright design
is better for some uses, such as its obvious superiority on technical
single track.
However, the ridiculous claim is made by some (including several
prominent posters on rec.bicycles.*) that uprights can be made
comfortable for ALL through proper fit, or the the discomfort of upright
bicycles does NOT turn some off of cycling as an activity.
Almost every cyclist would benefit if more people took up the activity.
Why discourage people from riding a crank-forward upright or a recumbent
if that is what it take to have them be an active cyclist? Snobbish elitism?
Then there is the sad case of the real life Fabrizio Mazzoleni's, who
are so insecure that the need to form a clique that degenerates anyone
who do not use the same bicycles, clothing and accessories as the UCI
peloton.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article
>> <ef736741-f13b-43c9...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> "ryanc...@comcast.net" <ryanc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> , the recumbent
>>>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>>>
>>>> Chalo
>>> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
>>> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
>>> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
>>> recumbents a curiosity?
>>>
>>> Dick Ryan
>>
>> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
>>
> Wheel and Sprocket generates enough revenue to advertise on billboards,
> radio and newspapers.
This is not due to their recumbent business, but due to their upright
business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
California or Florida.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> ...
>> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
>> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by
>> all means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that
>> all bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better
>> than others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
>> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
>> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
>> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety
>> that different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people
>> and narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.
>
> Upright bicycles are fine for those who can ride them comfortably, which
> may well be a majority of the population. Certainly, the upright design is
> better for some uses, such as its obvious superiority on technical single
> track.
>
> However, the ridiculous claim is made by some (including several prominent
> posters on rec.bicycles.*) that uprights can be made comfortable for ALL
> through proper fit, or the the discomfort of upright bicycles does NOT
> turn some off of cycling as an activity.
Most older folks cannot ride uprights and be comfortable on them. They do
not have the physical fitness for it and all the tweaking in the world isn't
going to make any difference.
Recumbents are all about comfort. They do have other virtues of course, but
they are incidental to the comfort issue.
> Almost every cyclist would benefit if more people took up the activity.
> Why discourage people from riding a crank-forward upright or a recumbent
> if that is what it take to have them be an active cyclist? Snobbish
> elitism?
>
> Then there is the sad case of the real life Fabrizio Mazzoleni's, who are
> so insecure that the need to form a clique that degenerates [denigrates]
> anyone who do not use the same bicycles, clothing and accessories as the
> UCI peloton.
I wonder whatever happened to Fab? He was a roadie and possibly even a
racer, but such activities are not for the long run. Those of us who ride
recumbents will continue to do so into our old age, something that almost
all upright riders never do.
Fab amused me at first with his put down of all other cyclists who were not
into racing, but he was a one note Johnny and eventually got to be tiresome.
Good riddance to the jerk!
DougC
>
> This would be good advice, except for one small, er large, problem.
> Chalo is 2.05 meters tall and has a mass of about 150 kg (at last
> report), which makes him larger than your average NFL tackle. Chalo will
> NOT fit properly on a RANS Rocket or practically any other production
> recumbent. An XL Lightning P-38 with a longer boom MIGHT be acceptable,
> or if Freddy Markham would build a custom Tour Easy with larger diameter
> tubing and extended wheelbase.
>
> I am not surprised at his size that Chalo finds the handling or
> recumbents that are designed for much smaller people to be poor.
>
He should try sitting on a Cycle Genius Falcon if he gets the chance:
> http://www.cyclegenius.com/ltx.html
I am about 6'2" and 285lbs, 2.05 meters and 150kg works out to about
6'7" and 330 lbs or so. Adjusted for me, there's still about three
inches of room to scoot the seat base back. Someone so heavy might watch
the rear wheel spokes, though I'd bet the front would work as-is-OEM.
The Cycle Genius Raven/Falcon is one of the widest-adjustment recumbent
/frames/ around, the seat adjustment can fit people from about four feet
to about six and a half feet--but the handlebars will need to be changed
over that range. Under about 5' you'll need shorter handlebars and near
6' you'll want longer ones. (Also the stem they use is not good, but
changing that out is a minor issue)
~
ryancycles
> business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
> intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
> However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
> recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
> California or Florida.
>
You'll never see one on the floor of this shop!
They don't go up hills.
They are too heavy.
They are too low to the ground.
They're slow.
Sorry, can't help you, don't know anything about them.
Real men ride REAL bicycles!
And my favorite general comment about cycling
"to be a real cyclist you have to be willing to endure pain and
suffering"
The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
told he'd have to come back some other time. I was present at a shop
that sold our bikes and witnessed this wonderful demonstration of
salesmanship. The recumbent guy was discussing the sale of one of our
$4500 tandems to a potential customer. Another salesman overhearing
the conversation stopped and interrupted and said to the couple
interested in the bike "you won't find that thing as comfortable as
you might think" and walked off.
It's rather difficult to popularize a product that for all practical
purposes there are no retail outlets for.
Mr. Chalo is way off base on his comments about poor design, there are
plenty of well designed recumbents out there, but he may be right
about them remaining a curiosity forever.
Dick Ryan
Peter Clinch
> They don't go up hills.
> They are too heavy.
> They are too low to the ground.
> They're slow.
What's particularly dopey is the way these get wheeled out even when
there is obvious proof to the contrary:
"that thing's so low, you're invisible!"
"but you saw me, right, you can see me now?"
"yes!"
"errrrrr..."
and so on.
The usual answer to "how do you do x on that?" is "the same way as on an
upright", but people just won't accept it. x is most often steering and
balance and setting off.
> Real men ride REAL bicycles!
A bit like the original attitude of Penny-Farthing/Ordinary riders to
the new-fangled Safety... So I guess REAL Real Men ride Ordinaries! ;-)
Though as an occasional Unicyclist it's clear that anyone using such
gauche contrivances as handlebars and a second wheel is a bit of a
girl's party blouse! ;-)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Edward Dolan
"ryancycles" <ryanc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:812211c9-b689-4eb7...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> This is not due to their recumbent business, but due to their upright
> business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
> intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
> However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
> recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
> California or Florida.
>
> >location has little or nothing to do with bike sales. The attitudes of
> >the owner and the employees has everything to do with it. One would think
> >that shop owners from other parts of the country would notice the success
> >that W&S has selling recumbents. But they don't and probably never will.
> >A friend of mine works at W&S and related this story to me. Every year
> >Trek has a dealer meeting at the factory (which is not far from W&S's
> >shop in Hale's Corner). As W&S is Trek's biggest dealer and well known
> >as perhaps the most successful bike shop in the country they get quite a
> >few bike shop owner visitors during the dealer meeting. A common question
> >asked by visiting dealers is "why do you have all these recumbents on the
> >floor?". Basically a lot of bike shop owners don't have a clue about
> >business. Of course one of the things that they have to deal with even if
> >they are smart is that the average bike shop employee is a testosterone
> >laden jock who hates recumbents.
>>>The one recumbent bike shop that I am familiar with is Hostel Shoppe in
>>>Stevens Point, Wisconsin. None of what you say above is true there. That
>>>bike shop is totally oriented toward recumbents and everyone who works
>>>there is very knowledgeable about them. I think their upright business
>>>does not amount to much. They are also heavily into catalog sales and I
>>>have purchased a couple of rather expensive recumbents from them strictly
>>>on the basis of their catalog. Hostel Shoppe even holds rallies in the
>>>summer which attracts many hundreds of recumbent enthusiasts from all
>>>over the Upper Midwest.
>>>Mr. Ryan says location has nothing to do with bike sales, but it sure
>>>does have a lot to do with recumbent bike sales. You will never find a
>>>mountainous region of the country much into recumbents. I leave it to
>>>your own common sense to figure it out.
>>>Florida would be the ideal location for recumbent cycling but the lack of
>>>safe roads prevents it. Bike trails are the solution of course, but most
>>>of us will be dead and gone by the time that ever happens.
>>Comments about recumbents that I've heard in bike shops.
You'll never see one on the floor of this shop!
They don't go up hills.
They are too heavy.
They are too low to the ground.
They're slow.
Sorry, can't help you, don't know anything about them.
Real men ride REAL bicycles!
And my favorite general comment about cycling
"to be a real cyclist you have to be willing to endure pain and
suffering"
>>>All the comments above are typical of bike shops that do not sell
>>>recumbents and want nothing to do with them. But even so, it is difficult
>>>to sell recumbents because they are so expensive. They do not compare
>>>with uprights in the same price range. And finally, they do not go up
>>>hills at all well and, unless you are willing to work harder, you will be
>>>slower on them.
>>The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
told he'd have to come back some other time. I was present at a shop
that sold our bikes and witnessed this wonderful demonstration of
salesmanship. The recumbent guy was discussing the sale of one of our
$4500 tandems to a potential customer. Another salesman overhearing
the conversation stopped and interrupted and said to the couple
interested in the bike "you won't find that thing as comfortable as
you might think" and walked off.
>>>Unbelievable!
>>It's rather difficult to popularize a product that for all practical
purposes there are no retail outlets for.
>>>Agreed. I have bought most of my recumbents mail order from catalogs. But
>>>I believe the high prices remain a major sticking point. For instance, if
>>>you could have brought out your Ryan recumbent for around $500. instead
>>>of almost $2000. it might have made a big difference. Most folks just
>>>don't think any bike is worth a couple of thousand dollars. That is what
>>>I spend on a used car.
>>Mr. Chalo is way off base on his comments about poor design, there are
plenty of well designed recumbents out there, but he may be right
about them remaining a curiosity forever.
>>>I find Mr. Chalo's remarks about recumbents to be quite interesting and
>>>indeed enlightening. The present RANS catalog indicates what is wrong
>>>with recumbents. There are way too many designs. This only leads to
>>>confusion among the public. The main and perhaps only selling point for
>>>recumbents ought to be comfort. Anything beyond that is incidental and
>>>should not be talked about much if at all. Instead, we get all this
>>>palaver about recumbents being fast, or even faster than uprights. This
>>>is extremely misleading and borders on lying.
>>>Dick Ryan was one of the pioneers of recumbent manufacture in the US. He
>>>had an excellent design (long wheelbase) but the underseat steering was a
>>>complication that put off many of us. I finally got the Infinity instead
>>>of the Ryan because it was less expensive. I enjoyed it, but I was never
>>>100% comfortable with the under seat steering. I feel long wheelbase with
>>>above seat steering and a medium height bottom bracket (but below the
>>>seat) is the ideal recumbent for the masses.
Edward Dolan
"Jon" <jon...@none.non> wrote in message
news:4759adc7$0$7551$8826...@news.teranews.com...
[newsgroups restored]
> newsgroups trimmed.
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote
>
> Perhaps because I don't ride with RealCyclists(tm), or maybe
> because they're so high and fast when pass without seeing me,
> I hardly ever hear this sort of dogma from other riders.
>
>
>> ryancycles wrote:
>>> They don't go up hills.
>
> Then why am I not stuck in a valley?
They go up hills, but slowly and badly.
>>> They are too heavy.
>
> Compared to what? My self-sustained touring setup is within
> 5% or less of a similarly equipped upright touring bike. My
> "utility recumbent" is not unreasonably heavier than many
> upright "beater/errand" bikes wit fenders and baskets. My
> road recumbent is not an ultralight, either, but the 4-7 pounds
> difference for a similarly priced upright road bike is insignificant
> compared to the spare tire I'm (and even many upright cyclists)
> are carrying in body weight!
Almost all bicycles are going to weigh around 30 pounds. When they weigh
less than that you are paying for it through the nose.
>>> They are too low to the ground.
>>> "that thing's so low, you're invisible!"
>
> Oh. Have you seen my six foot rabbit named Harvey, too? %^)
Low trikes can be quite dangerous. Any fool with some common sense knows
that much.
>>> They're slow.
>
> Maybe with me on it! But not with one of the many
> recumbent bicycle speed world record holders.
You will work much harder to be fast on a recumbent than you will on an
upright.
>>> Real men ride REAL bicycles!
>
> With such potential personal problems proximate to their
> upright bike seats, it's perhaps particularly appropriate that
> they view their bike choice as proof of manhood... %^P
Jon sure writes funny, but he is never funny. Very strange!
Tom Sherman
>> ...
> The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
> the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
I have experienced exactly that!
Tom Sherman
Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
Chalo
>
> Dick Ryan wrote:
> >
> > the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
> > told he'd have to come back some other time....
>
> I have experienced exactly that!
If you go into a bike shop with nuanced questions about unicycles, you
might get a similar treatment-- it's hard not to think "umm, who
cares?" when someone asks after a quasi-perverse self-abuse device.
The difference is that a lot more shops actually know where to find a
unicycle to sell to you.
Go into a gun shop asking for a magnetic rail gun, and you'll get some
puzzled looks too. There's no reason _in principle_ that they
shouldn't carry such a thing-- but why would they really?
Chalo
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>> The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
>>> the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
>>> told he'd have to come back some other time....
>> I have experienced exactly that!
>
> If you go into a bike shop with nuanced questions about unicycles, you
> might get a similar treatment-- it's hard not to think "umm, who
> cares?" when someone asks after a quasi-perverse self-abuse device.
> The difference is that a lot more shops actually know where to find a
> unicycle to sell to you.
butbutbut, this shop had several new recumbents sitting on the sales
floor, fully assembled, with price tags on them, just a few feet from
where the manager and myself were standing, while the manager was
telling me I had to come back when the "recumbent guy" was there. Their
yellow page advertisement even mentioned that they sold recumbents!
Note that Dick Ryan wrote "shops that we dealt with", which implies that
the shops Ryan referred to sold his product (Vanguard single and
Fleetwood/Duplex tandem recumbents).
> Go into a gun shop asking for a magnetic rail gun, and you'll get some
> puzzled looks too. There's no reason _in principle_ that they
> shouldn't carry such a thing-- but why would they really?
If you went into a LBS looking for a cargo bicycle and saw several
sitting on the sales floor fully assembled, but the staff would only
talk to you about drop bar road bikes and FS ATBs, what would your
reaction be?
Roger Zoul
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>>> The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
>>>> the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
>>>> told he'd have to come back some other time....
>>> I have experienced exactly that!
>>
>> If you go into a bike shop with nuanced questions about unicycles, you
>> might get a similar treatment-- it's hard not to think "umm, who
>> cares?" when someone asks after a quasi-perverse self-abuse device.
>> The difference is that a lot more shops actually know where to find a
>> unicycle to sell to you.
>
> butbutbut, this shop had several new recumbents sitting on the sales
> floor, fully assembled, with price tags on them, just a few feet from
> where the manager and myself were standing, while the manager was telling
> me I had to come back when the "recumbent guy" was there. Their yellow
> page advertisement even mentioned that they sold recumbents!
That is sad to the point of moronic. Shops like this deserve to go out of
business, if you ask me. They'd rather turn a potential repeat customer away
than learn to ride a recumbent in the parking lot (to show newbies how to
get started).
>
> Note that Dick Ryan wrote "shops that we dealt with", which implies that
> the shops Ryan referred to sold his product (Vanguard single and
> Fleetwood/Duplex tandem recumbents).
>
>> Go into a gun shop asking for a magnetic rail gun, and you'll get some
>> puzzled looks too. There's no reason _in principle_ that they
>> shouldn't carry such a thing-- but why would they really?
>
> If you went into a LBS looking for a cargo bicycle and saw several sitting
> on the sales floor fully assembled, but the staff would only talk to you
> about drop bar road bikes and FS ATBs, what would your reaction be?
Morons.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fje3qd$ka4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Chalo Colina wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>>>> The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
>>>>> the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
>>>>> told he'd have to come back some other time....
>>>> I have experienced exactly that!
>>> If you go into a bike shop with nuanced questions about unicycles, you
>>> might get a similar treatment-- it's hard not to think "umm, who
>>> cares?" when someone asks after a quasi-perverse self-abuse device.
>>> The difference is that a lot more shops actually know where to find a
>>> unicycle to sell to you.
>> butbutbut, this shop had several new recumbents sitting on the sales
>> floor, fully assembled, with price tags on them, just a few feet from
>> where the manager and myself were standing, while the manager was telling
>> me I had to come back when the "recumbent guy" was there. Their yellow
>> page advertisement even mentioned that they sold recumbents!
>
> That is sad to the point of moronic. Shops like this deserve to go out of
> business, if you ask me. They'd rather turn a potential repeat customer away
> than learn to ride a recumbent in the parking lot (to show newbies how to
A lot of shops carried recumbents in the mini-boom of the late 1990's.
Many suffered from the problem of having a staff of young wannabe
racers, who were working there mainly to get bicycles and parts at
wholesale, and had no interest in anything but racing bicycles. Those
shops that went to the trouble to find staff that actually understood
recumbent bicycles and carried a wide enough variety to suit potential
customers are still selling recumbents today, and likely making an
acceptable profit doing so.
The demise of recumbents from Cannondale and Trek is not surprising in
this light (and the fact that both were overpriced), since there would
be one or two lonely recumbents sitting in the shop corner that none of
the staff wanted to deal with. One wonders if this was part of the
demise of ATP Vision, since they managed to sign up a lot of LBSs in the
late 1990s, most of which did not make any real effort after than to
promote or sell the bikes.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]
> Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
Dick Ryan's message showed up on my OE newsreader without any quotation
marks at all, so I added some to his and then some more to mine so as to at
least make it readable. The main thing is to keep clear who is saying what
and my markings accomplished that.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fjcvi9$etu$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
> [...]
>> Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
>
> Dick Ryan's message showed up on my OE newsreader without any quotation
> marks at all, so I added some to his and then some more to mine so as to at
> least make it readable. The main thing is to keep clear who is saying what
> and my markings accomplished that.
Sorry, but they did not. Your post made it appear is if you wrote some
of Dick's posting that you were quoting.
I would rather use the Google web interface than OE for Usenet. Why not
try Thunderbird [1] (NOT this Thunderbird [2])? The price is within your
budget - Thunderbird is free!
[1] <http://mozzila.org/>.
[2] <http://www.bumwine.com/tbird.html>.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
[....]
> The demise of recumbents from Cannondale and Trek is not surprising in
> this light (and the fact that both were overpriced), since there would be
> one or two lonely recumbents sitting in the shop corner that none of the
> staff wanted to deal with. One wonders if this was part of the demise of
> ATP Vision, since they managed to sign up a lot of LBSs in the late 1990s,
> most of which did not make any real effort after than to promote or sell
> the bikes.
I think Vision simply tried to get too large too quick and that it did not
have much to do with the bike shops. It came as quite a surprise to me when
they suddenly went out of business. I think the lesson for recumbent
manufacturers is to stay small, even if it means you have to rely on mail
order catalogs. Unless you actually want to ride a recumbent before you buy,
a good mail order catalog will tell you everything you will ever want to
know. The RANS brochure comes immediately to mind and Bacchetta has a very
good one too. I have purchased all of my many recumbents based on catalogs
(brochures) and I have never been disappointed.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fje5n3$ui0$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> [....]
>> The demise of recumbents from Cannondale and Trek is not surprising in
>> this light (and the fact that both were overpriced), since there would be
>> one or two lonely recumbents sitting in the shop corner that none of the
>> staff wanted to deal with. One wonders if this was part of the demise of
>> ATP Vision, since they managed to sign up a lot of LBSs in the late 1990s,
>> most of which did not make any real effort after than to promote or sell
>> the bikes.
>
> I think Vision simply tried to get too large too quick and that it did not
> have much to do with the bike shops. It came as quite a surprise to me when
> they suddenly went out of business.
Part of ATP Vision trying to get large was signing up a lot of bicycle
shops - if I recall correctly, they had many more official dealers than
RANS, while selling about the same number of bicycles.
At least ATP closed shop in an honorable manner, unlike BikeE which
assured everyone that things were fine, leaving dealers and suppliers
holding the bag. Note that many of the principles at BikeE landed at BigHa.
> I think the lesson for recumbent
> manufacturers is to stay small, even if it means you have to rely on mail
> order catalogs. Unless you actually want to ride a recumbent before you buy,
> a good mail order catalog will tell you everything you will ever want to
> know. The RANS brochure comes immediately to mind and Bacchetta has a very
> good one too. I have purchased all of my many recumbents based on catalogs
> (brochures) and I have never been disappointed.
I think brochures have been replaced for the most part by Internet web
sites - most anyone in the market for a recumbent has an Internet
connection.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fjcvi9$etu$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> [...]
>>> Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
>>
>> Dick Ryan's message showed up on my OE newsreader without any quotation
>> marks at all, so I added some to his and then some more to mine so as to
>> at least make it readable. The main thing is to keep clear who is saying
>> what and my markings accomplished that.
>
> Sorry, but they did not. Your post made it appear is if you wrote some of
> Dick's posting that you were quoting.
It did not appear that way from my newsreader. 99% of all messages show up
properly on my newsreader. Those few that don't are most likely the fault of
the poster and not my newsreader. I have noted in the past that some of Jim
McNamara's messages also do not appear with the proper quotation marks. But
these anomalies are few and far between.
> I would rather use the Google web interface than OE for Usenet. Why not
> try Thunderbird [1] (NOT this Thunderbird [2])? The price is within your
> budget - Thunderbird is free!
The Google web interface is impossible. I hate it! The fact that my message
in response to Dick Ryan's showed up wrong on your newsreader leads me to
believe there is something wrong at your end.
I do not see the sense of going to the web when I have it (a newsreader)
already on my operating system closely integrated with everything else. What
am I missing?
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fje7i8$99t$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fjcvi9$etu$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> [...]
>>>> Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
>>> Dick Ryan's message showed up on my OE newsreader without any quotation
>>> marks at all, so I added some to his and then some more to mine so as to
>>> at least make it readable. The main thing is to keep clear who is saying
>>> what and my markings accomplished that.
>> Sorry, but they did not. Your post made it appear is if you wrote some of
>> Dick's posting that you were quoting.
>
> It did not appear that way from my newsreader. 99% of all messages show up
> properly on my newsreader. Those few that don't are most likely the fault of
> the poster and not my newsreader. I have noted in the past that some of Jim
> McNamara's messages also do not appear with the proper quotation marks. But
> these anomalies are few and far between.
It is well known that OE does some odd things that do not fit Usenet
standards. That you post appears fine on OE does not mean that it is fine.
>> I would rather use the Google web interface than OE for Usenet. Why not
>> try Thunderbird [1] (NOT this Thunderbird [2])? The price is within your
>> budget - Thunderbird is free!
>
> The Google web interface is impossible. I hate it! The fact that my message
> in response to Dick Ryan's showed up wrong on your newsreader leads me to
> believe there is something wrong at your end.
Highly unlikely.
> I do not see the sense of going to the web when I have it (a newsreader)
> already on my operating system closely integrated with everything else. What
> am I missing?
Note that I was NOT recommending a web based interface for Usenet,
mainly that it would be preferable to OE. There are many program out
there better than OE for use as newsreaders.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes, you are right about the Internet now being of supreme importance for
getting information. It is funny how it is the last thing I ever think of
though. Apparently I am never going to get out of the past. I just
automatically go to the library to get information out of books and
magazines and I have always liked printed catalogs and brochures. I think of
my computer and the Internet as toys, not to be taken seriously. I don't
think I will ever get up to speed on any of this newfangled stuff.
Folks have told me that I have never got out of the 1940's! For sure, I
never got out of the 1950's pretty much by conscious choice. In some ways, I
am like the kid in "The Tin Drum" who refused to grow up and get with the
times.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fje7i8$99t$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fjcvi9$etu$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Hey Ed, your quoting hierarchy is all messed up!
>>>> Dick Ryan's message showed up on my OE newsreader without any quotation
>>>> marks at all, so I added some to his and then some more to mine so as
>>>> to at least make it readable. The main thing is to keep clear who is
>>>> saying what and my markings accomplished that.
>>> Sorry, but they did not. Your post made it appear is if you wrote some
>>> of Dick's posting that you were quoting.
>>
>> It did not appear that way from my newsreader. 99% of all messages show
>> up properly on my newsreader. Those few that don't are most likely the
>> fault of the poster and not my newsreader. I have noted in the past that
>> some of Jim McNamara's messages also do not appear with the proper
>> quotation marks. But these anomalies are few and far between.
>
> It is well known that OE does some odd things that do not fit Usenet
> standards. That you post appears fine on OE does not mean that it is fine.
Nope, if it appeared fine on my newsreader, I can only assume that I did it
correctly. I am now using Vista instead of XP, so I think OE is no more. It
is now Windows Mail.
>>> I would rather use the Google web interface than OE for Usenet. Why not
>>> try Thunderbird [1] (NOT this Thunderbird [2])? The price is within your
>>> budget - Thunderbird is free!
>>
>> The Google web interface is impossible. I hate it! The fact that my
>> message in response to Dick Ryan's showed up wrong on your newsreader
>> leads me to believe there is something wrong at your end.
>
> Highly unlikely.
The web is often messed up for one reason or another. I trust my own
computer operating system more than I do anything on the web.
>> I do not see the sense of going to the web when I have it (a newsreader)
>> already on my operating system closely integrated with everything else.
>> What am I missing?
>
> Note that I was NOT recommending a web based interface for Usenet, mainly
> that it would be preferable to OE. There are many program out there better
> than OE for use as newsreaders.
What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the newsreader. It
just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
Tom Sherman
"Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0" to be precise.
Since micro$oft is so large, they feel no need to adhere to standards.
>>>> I would rather use the Google web interface than OE for Usenet. Why not
>>>> try Thunderbird [1] (NOT this Thunderbird [2])? The price is within your
>>>> budget - Thunderbird is free!
>>> The Google web interface is impossible. I hate it! The fact that my
>>> message in response to Dick Ryan's showed up wrong on your newsreader
>>> leads me to believe there is something wrong at your end.
>> Highly unlikely.
>
> The web is often messed up for one reason or another. I trust my own
> computer operating system more than I do anything on the web.
Usenet is not the World Wide Web.
>>> I do not see the sense of going to the web when I have it (a newsreader)
>>> already on my operating system closely integrated with everything else.
>>> What am I missing?
>> Note that I was NOT recommending a web based interface for Usenet, mainly
>> that it would be preferable to OE. There are many program out there better
>> than OE for use as newsreaders.
>
> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the newsreader. It
> just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
frugal Mr. Dolan.
> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
in Germany, this question makes no sense. Secondly, it is a "news
server" and not a "newsreader". I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
newsreader, which is also free.
[1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
such.
[2] ibid.
DougC
> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference here
> and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.
> Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.
This is one odd point about upright bicycles--the biggest complaint that
LBS's probably hear is riding discomfort, yet spending more for an
upright bicycle doesn't get you anything more comfortable, it only gets
you something that weighs less--which is not usually a major complaint.
Bicycle companies have known this for a long time, they've pretty much
given up on claiming that any of their upper-end bikes are comfortable.
They emphasize low weights and "racing heritage".
> Trikes are a special
> breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
> bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.
>
I contend that tadpole trikes are inferior to deltas, for the simple
reason that the steering mechanisms of tadpoles is more-susceptible to
flexing and misalignment, and therefore more likely to suffer scrub
losses. The only advantage a typical (low-set) tadpole can claim is that
it can sustain higher cornering forces than a typical delta--but most of
the time when one rides any kind of bicycle, one is riding in basically
straight lines. It doesn't make any sense to choose a trike that
sacrifices straight-line riding riding efficiency for extra cornering
ability, when most of the time you're going to be riding in straight lines.
> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
> population.
>
I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
.....
In that respect--we might view anything shorter than a standard LWB as a
bike that is trying to maintain the LWB comfort, while trying to avoid
all the LWB weight. The weight is not usually a problem however, if the
local terrain is even moderately flat then comfort is typically a much
larger issue.
-------
Overwhelmingly the impression I get from other cyclists is that they are
more concerned with looking odd than they are with being physically
uncomfortable.
I doubt I'll live to see recumbents become mainstream. To recognize the
advantages, one must ride a lot of miles on them often. The conditions
necessary to force a lot of US drivers onto bicycles would be drastic,
to put it mildly.
~
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the newsreader.
>> It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>
> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
> frugal Mr. Dolan.
There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I still
do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to use it
in connection with your "news server."
>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>
> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I do
not see the 'de' anymore.
Secondly, it is a "news
> server" and not a "newsreader".
Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra for
this.
I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
> newsreader, which is also free.
So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then? It seems you are going a long way
around for not much benefit that I can see. Does not your ISP give you
everything my ISP gives me at no extra charge? I am assuming your OS is
Windows XP.
I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
"newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to focus
on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members of the
group who would like to know something about this too.
> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
> such.
I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
> [2] ibid.
Ditto.
But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or just a
criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and yet he
seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.
Edward Dolan
"DougC" <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
news:iiC6j.209$IF2...@newsfe07.lga...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference
>> here and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a
>> $2000. Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.
>
> This is one odd point about upright bicycles--the biggest complaint that
> LBS's probably hear is riding discomfort, yet spending more for an upright
> bicycle doesn't get you anything more comfortable, it only gets you
> something that weighs less--which is not usually a major complaint.
>
> Bicycle companies have known this for a long time, they've pretty much
> given up on claiming that any of their upper-end bikes are comfortable.
> They emphasize low weights and "racing heritage".
I have been in bike shops where one quarter of the space in the store is
devoted to saddles, as if that is ever going to solve the problem.
>> Trikes are a special
>> breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
>> bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.
>>
>
> I contend that tadpole trikes are inferior to deltas, for the simple
> reason that the steering mechanisms of tadpoles is more-susceptible to
> flexing and misalignment, and therefore more likely to suffer scrub
> losses. The only advantage a typical (low-set) tadpole can claim is that
> it can sustain higher cornering forces than a typical delta--but most of
> the time when one rides any kind of bicycle, one is riding in basically
> straight lines. It doesn't make any sense to choose a trike that
> sacrifices straight-line riding riding efficiency for extra cornering
> ability, when most of the time you're going to be riding in straight
> lines.
Amen to all of the above! Deltas get a bad rap because there are so few good
ones available.
>> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
>> population.
>
> I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
> tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the same
> group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
> .....
> In that respect--we might view anything shorter than a standard LWB as a
> bike that is trying to maintain the LWB comfort, while trying to avoid all
> the LWB weight. The weight is not usually a problem however, if the local
> terrain is even moderately flat then comfort is typically a much larger
> issue.
The pioneers of recumbent design first started with short wheelbase but soon
ended up going to long wheelbase which immediately solved a multitude of
problems which short wheelbase couldn't resolve.
> Overwhelmingly the impression I get from other cyclists is that they are
> more concerned with looking odd than they are with being physically
> uncomfortable.
>
> I doubt I'll live to see recumbents become mainstream. To recognize the
> advantages, one must ride a lot of miles on them often. The conditions
> necessary to force a lot of US drivers onto bicycles would be drastic, to
> put it mildly.
My God ... I don't believe it ... a kindred spirit at last! Welcome to a
very small club here on Usenet. But get used to being disagreed with in a
most disagreeable way. I am inured to it by now, but I feel I should at
least warn you about what you will run into. Most of these clods are into
wanting to go fast and seem not to care about the pain and discomfort they
must endure in order to do so.
Best Regards,
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fjennu$nas$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the newsreader.
>>> It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
>> frugal Mr. Dolan.
>
> There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I still
> do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to use it
> in connection with your "news server."
Where does Mr. Dolan get this idea that Yahoo has anything to do with
how I use Usenet (other than a reply to email address)?
>>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
>> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
>
> Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I do
> not see the 'de' anymore.
That was the service which is now news.individual.net, which is no
longer free.
> Secondly, it is a "news
>> server" and not a "newsreader".
>
> Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
> ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra for
> this.
No, a news server is something that collects and propagates Usenet
messages. A newsreader is software you install on your computer that
allows you to read and post using the news server.
Your news server appears to be <http://www.giganews.com>, which iw.net
may well provide at no additional charge.
> I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
>> newsreader, which is also free.
>
> So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then?
No, Thunderbird is provided as free-ware by the Mozilla Foundation, and
is a continuation of the old Netscape News and Mail, which itself is a
continuation of work done by someone at 6th & Springfield [1] and has
nothing at all to do with Yahoo.
> It seems you are going a long way
> around for not much benefit that I can see. Does not your ISP give you
> everything my ISP gives me at no extra charge? I am assuming your OS is
> Windows XP.
The benefit of not using micro$oft products to interface with the
outside world, is that 99+% of email viruses and other nasties are
written to attach micro$oft products. In addition, micro$oft products do
odd, non-standard things at times, and are clunky for this use.
> I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
> "newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to focus
> on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members of the
> group who would like to know something about this too.
See above. Cost, user interface, avoiding micro$oft related nasties.
>> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
>> such.
>
> I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
>
>> [2] ibid.
>
> Ditto.
Sheesh!
> But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
> figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or just a
> criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and yet he
> seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.
It is very difficult to track people down on the Internet, unless you
have access to ISP records (e.g. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). In
many ways this is unfortunate, since allows for endless amount of spam
that the originators do not have to pay for (bandwidth costs money) and
anonymous cowards on Usenet.
[1] No, the 6th & Springfield part is NOT a joke.
Steve Gravrock
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
>> population.
>>
>
> I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
> tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
> same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
feet longer.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fjennu$nas$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>>>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the
>>>> newsreader. It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>>> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
>>> frugal Mr. Dolan.
>>
>> There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I
>> still do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to
>> use it in connection with your "news server."
>
> Where does Mr. Dolan get this idea that Yahoo has anything to do with how
> I use Usenet (other than a reply to email address)?
I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your message
to do a reply:
<sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP email
address?
>>>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>>> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
>>> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
>>
>> Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I
>> do not see the 'de' anymore.
>
> That was the service which is now news.individual.net, which is no longer
> free.
>
>> Secondly, it is a "news
>>> server" and not a "newsreader".
>>
>> Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
>> ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra
>> for this.
>
> No, a news server is something that collects and propagates Usenet
> messages. A newsreader is software you install on your computer that
> allows you to read and post using the news server.
Thanks! I never really understood any of that. Now I do!
> Your news server appears to be <http://www.giganews.com>, which iw.net may
> well provide at no additional charge.
I did not know that. All I have ever noticed was the "news.iw.net" which I
thought was my ISP news server.
>> I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
>>> newsreader, which is also free.
>>
>> So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then?
>
> No, Thunderbird is provided as free-ware by the Mozilla Foundation, and is
> a continuation of the old Netscape News and Mail, which itself is a
> continuation of work done by someone at 6th & Springfield [1] and has
> nothing at all to do with Yahoo.
>
>> It seems you are going a long way around for not much benefit that I can
>> see. Does not your ISP give you everything my ISP gives me at no extra
>> charge? I am assuming your OS is Windows XP.
>
> The benefit of not using micro$oft products to interface with the outside
> world, is that 99+% of email viruses and other nasties are written to
> attach micro$oft products. In addition, micro$oft products do odd,
> non-standard things at times, and are clunky for this use.
But if you don't open unknown attachments what is the risk? Windows Mail,
like Outlook Express before it, is as smooth and easy as it gets. I think
you have gone to a lot of trouble to get around Microsoft for nothing. I do
use Firefox for my browser, but I notice there are nasties beginning to
invade it too, just like Internet Explorer. Not even Apple can guarantee
anything to be safe.
>> I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
>> "newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to
>> focus on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members
>> of the group who would like to know something about this too.
>
> See above. Cost, user interface, avoiding micro$oft related nasties.
There is no cost involved and your prejudice against Microsoft borders on
paranoia, but you may well have your reasons. The interface could not be
better.
>>> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
>>> such.
>>
>> I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
>>
>>> [2] ibid.
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> Sheesh!
>
>> But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
>> figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or
>> just a criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and
>> yet he seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.
>
> It is very difficult to track people down on the Internet, unless you have
> access to ISP records (e.g. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). In many
> ways this is unfortunate, since allows for endless amount of spam that the
> originators do not have to pay for (bandwidth costs money) and anonymous
> cowards on Usenet.
Understood. Thanks.
Edward Dolan
"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbro...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag2ml3t1m7lo5qrt3...@4ax.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ""A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.""
Here was the complete paragraph:
>> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference
>> here and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a
>> $2000. Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.
> That's according to Edward Dolan who seems to be a self-appointed
> "expert" on everything. I am so glad that I plonked him a long time
> ago.
>
> To think that there is little difference in those bikes is ludicrous.
> Take a look at the components, weld lines and just about everything
> else. The only advantage is....when they break down you simply toss
> them in a trash can and go get another one.
Nope, the BASIC DESIGN (as stated above) is the same. Harry of Lincoln,
Nebraska is a scoundrel which he proved by selectively quoting a single
sentence out of context. I shall henceforth treat him with the contempt that
he has earned.
[...]
Tom Sherman
Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.
Note that it is actually easier to manuveur a LWB in tight spaces, since
the chainring out front on a SWB tends to scratch and mar things in its
path.
Tom Keats
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Steve Gravrock wrote:
>> What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
>> bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
>> lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
>> can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
>> feet longer.
>
> Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
> in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
> flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.
That must've been quite a ride.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fjennu$nas$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>>>>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the
>>>>> newsreader. It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>>>> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
>>>> frugal Mr. Dolan.
>>> There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I
>>> still do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to
>>> use it in connection with your "news server."
>> Where does Mr. Dolan get this idea that Yahoo has anything to do with how
>> I use Usenet (other than a reply to email address)?
>
> I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your message
> to do a reply:
>
> <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP email
> address?
I will use whatever email address I want.
>>>>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>>>> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
>>>> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
>>> Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I
>>> do not see the 'de' anymore.
>> That was the service which is now news.individual.net, which is no longer
>> free.
>>
>>> Secondly, it is a "news
>>>> server" and not a "newsreader".
>>> Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
>>> ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra
>>> for this.
>> No, a news server is something that collects and propagates Usenet
>> messages. A newsreader is software you install on your computer that
>> allows you to read and post using the news server.
>
> Thanks! I never really understood any of that. Now I do!
>
>> Your news server appears to be <http://www.giganews.com>, which iw.net may
>> well provide at no additional charge.
>
> I did not know that. All I have ever noticed was the "news.iw.net" which I
> thought was my ISP news server.
Well, your headers list giganews as your Usenet provider.
>>> I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
>>>> newsreader, which is also free.
>>> So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then?
>> No, Thunderbird is provided as free-ware by the Mozilla Foundation, and is
>> a continuation of the old Netscape News and Mail, which itself is a
>> continuation of work done by someone at 6th & Springfield [1] and has
>> nothing at all to do with Yahoo.
>>
>>> It seems you are going a long way around for not much benefit that I can
>>> see. Does not your ISP give you everything my ISP gives me at no extra
>>> charge? I am assuming your OS is Windows XP.
>> The benefit of not using micro$oft products to interface with the outside
>> world, is that 99+% of email viruses and other nasties are written to
>> attach micro$oft products. In addition, micro$oft products do odd,
>> non-standard things at times, and are clunky for this use.
>
> But if you don't open unknown attachments what is the risk? Windows Mail,
> like Outlook Express before it, is as smooth and easy as it gets. I think
> you have gone to a lot of trouble to get around Microsoft for nothing. I do
> use Firefox for my browser, but I notice there are nasties beginning to
> invade it too, just like Internet Explorer. Not even Apple can guarantee
> anything to be safe.
Do you run a good anti-spyware program? If not, you likely have a lot of
unwanted crap installed on your computer.
>>> I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
>>> "newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to
>>> focus on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members
>>> of the group who would like to know something about this too.
>> See above. Cost, user interface, avoiding micro$oft related nasties.
>
> There is no cost involved and your prejudice against Microsoft borders on
> paranoia, but you may well have your reasons. The interface could not be
> better.
Sorry, but I am forced to use Outlook at work. That is enough.
>>>> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
>>>> such.
>>> I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
>>>
>>>> [2] ibid.
>>> Ditto.
>> Sheesh!
>>
>>> But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
>>> figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or
>>> just a criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and
>>> yet he seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.
>> It is very difficult to track people down on the Internet, unless you have
>> access to ISP records (e.g. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). In many
>> ways this is unfortunate, since allows for endless amount of spam that the
>> originators do not have to pay for (bandwidth costs money) and anonymous
>> cowards on Usenet.
>
> Understood. Thanks.
--
Tom Sherman
> In article <fjfc8f$i9e$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Steve Gravrock wrote:
>
>>> What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
>>> bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
>>> lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
>>> can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
>>> feet longer.
>> Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
>> in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
>> flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.
>
> That must've been quite a ride.
Yep, who says recumbents can't do stairs! ;)
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your
>> message to do a reply:
>>
>> <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP
>> email address?
>
> I will use whatever email address I want.
Yeah, but WHY not your ISP email address? What are you afraid of? I do not
understand why anyone would want multiple email addresses. One would seem to
be enough. Or do you also have multiple addresses for where you live in real
life? One residence seems like it would be enough for any normal person.
After all, you can only BE in one place at a time.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fjfchv$jbh$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your
>>> message to do a reply:
>>>
>>> <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP
>>> email address?
>> I will use whatever email address I want.
>
> Yeah, but WHY not your ISP email address? What are you afraid of? I do not
> understand why anyone would want multiple email addresses. One would seem to
> be enough. Or do you also have multiple addresses for where you live in real
> life? One residence seems like it would be enough for any normal person.
> After all, you can only BE in one place at a time.
Non-portability.
Edward Dolan
"Steve Gravrock" <use...@sdg.users.panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnflma26...@panix3.panix.com...
I am only concerned with how it handles when ridden. Any and all other
considerations are incidental to that one criterion.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fjfchv$jbh$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your
>>>> message to do a reply:
>>>>
>>>> <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fjf5kh$nm4$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>> You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP
>>>> email address?
>>> I will use whatever email address I want.
>>
>> Yeah, but WHY not your ISP email address? What are you afraid of? I do
>> not understand why anyone would want multiple email addresses. One would
>> seem to be enough. Or do you also have multiple addresses for where you
>> live in real life? One residence seems like it would be enough for any
>> normal person. After all, you can only BE in one place at a time.
>
> Non-portability.
Well, settle down in one spot then. Milwaukee should suit you. Figure out
how to have your career there.
No charge for the good counsel. Just part of my noblesse oblige.
datakoll
Tom Sherman
> sprake
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sdb4ZtvJs
That elephant is upright, not recumbent.
Chalo
wrote:
>
> If you went into a LBS looking for a cargo bicycle and saw several
> sitting on the sales floor fully assembled, but the staff would only
> talk to you about drop bar road bikes and FS ATBs, what would your
> reaction be?
Make an offer for my favorite at 65% of the listed asking price. Then
find a better shop, regardless of how the previous maneuver worked
out.
Chalo
Tom Sherman
And this is how many shops tried to NOT sell recumbent bicycles.
Edward Dolan
"Wilson Warmouth" <w...@butthertz.com> wrote in message
news:B4CdnUKXEME5wcDa...@comcast.com...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:5s4bn9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> tam wrote:
>>
>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>
>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
> [....]
>>
>
> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
> millions [why not billions and billions] of serious cyclists worldwide
> ride uprights without discomfort.
Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is of course NEVER correct about anything.
How could he be? He is a Medical Physics IT Officer, whatever the hell that
is!
The fact is that no one in the entire history of the universe has EVER been
comfortable on an upright bike, at least not for more than 15 minutes. This
of course is proof positive of just how amazingly stupid everyone is. I
don't know about you, but my intelligence is insulted when I am doing
something that makes me uncomfortable and I don't take steps to correct it.
> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to understand
> that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable based on any of
> several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search on "recumbent
> butt" he might also be forced to consider that some "serious" cyclists
> find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or arse if you prefer.
If you are dumb enough not to be able get your seat dialed in for comfort on
a recumbent, then Hell Bells, you are too dumb to be riding any kind of
bicycle, let alone a recumbent. I suppose you can't get your easy chair at
home comfy either. How about your bed, you moronic imbecile!
Edward Dolan
"Wilson Warmouth" <w...@bikefit.com> wrote in message
news:yNSdnSNPLcoOIMDa...@comcast.com...
>
> "tam" <tpsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:56h7j.26536$kt3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
>> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
>> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride the
>> word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>> been reached yet.
>> Tam
>
> Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
> limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a properly
> fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit bolt upright
> on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly distributed and supported
> primarily by your arms and legs.
Most folks do not have much strength in their arms, especially women.
Further, in order to support your body in the drop bar position you also
must have sufficient strength in your abdomen, your back, your shoulders and
your neck. Again, most folks do not have this requisite strength.
The saddle should serve more as a perch or
> support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle
> if you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than
> neighborhood riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your
> weight and serve as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need to
> be properly sized to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.
Yet everybody sits on the saddle because they can't support themselves with
their arms and legs for very long. Really, only professional racers can ride
the road bike the way it was designed to be ridden. And they have to train
like hell in order to be able to do it.
> As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the bones
> of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of them I've
> seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted. Growth spurts
> and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper fit and comfort
> difficult. I wonder it this could have been your problem.
Kids are never on bikes for more than a few minutes at a time and could care
less about fit and comfort. Very funny that you do not know this!
> I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
> geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that discussion
> for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.
There is a single best "ideal" design for a recumbent just as there is for a
road bike for racers and a MTB for everyone else who is not a racer. Very
funny that you do not know this!
Edward Dolan
"Wilson Warmouth" <w...@crazyed.com> wrote in message
news:I4WdneKvKfY1UMDa...@comcast.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:N7adnbSVm7VEIsDa...@prairiewave.com...
>>
>> "Wilson Warmouth" <w...@butthertz.com> wrote in message
>> news:B4CdnUKXEME5wcDa...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:5s4bn9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> tam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>>>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>>>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
>>> [....]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
>>> millions [why not billions and billions] of serious cyclists worldwide
>>> ride uprights without discomfort.
>>
>> Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is of course NEVER correct about
>> anything. How could he be? He is a Medical Physics IT Officer, whatever
>> the hell that is!
>
I will never look it up, not even if Hell freezes over. He has got to tell
me himself. This he refuses to do. I think he is either a janitor or a
nurse's aid at Ninewells Hospital and knows more about mops and bedpans than
he does anything about medical physics.
>> The fact is that no one in the entire history of the universe has EVER
>> been comfortable on an upright bike, at least not for more than 15
>> minutes. This of course is proof positive of just how amazingly stupid
>> everyone is. I don't know about you, but my intelligence is insulted
>> when I am doing something that makes me uncomfortable and I don't take
>> steps to correct it.
>
> Whatever.
>
>
>>> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to
>>> understand that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable
>>> based on any of several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search
>>> on "recumbent butt" he might also be forced to consider that some
>>> "serious" cyclists find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or arse if
>>> you prefer.
>>
>> If you are dumb enough not to be able get your seat dialed in for comfort
>> on a recumbent, then Hell Bells, you are too dumb to be riding any kind
>> of bicycle, let alone a recumbent. I suppose you can't get your easy
>> chair at home comfy either. How about your bed, you moronic imbecile!
>
>
> Elementary Mr. Dolan. It's all a matter of proper fit. Even moronic
> imbeciles know that.
See my reply also in this thread to your spiel (right out of the old
Bicycling Magazine) on how uprights are to be ridden. Hells Bells, you can
be fitted perfectly and you can ride perfectly but unless you are of Tour de
France caliber, it will not make any difference. You are doomed to be
uncomfortable on an upright - sooner or later. Thus spake Zarathustra.
Rex Kerr
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes.
I'm in that camp. I lusted over recumbents for a long time before
finally buying one. A V-Rex with upgraded components. (supposedly
one of the better recumbents) Anyhow, I was enamored with it at
first, but it wore off. I eventually sold it because the promises
didn't pan out, and I found the bike to be, overall, less comfortable
than my upright bikes, especially on longer rides!
-Rex
Peter Clinch
And here we see the common fallacy that "recumbent" is a functional
class of bike like "tourer", "racer" or "freighter", but it isn't, it's
simply a broad generalisation about the seating and crank position. It
is no more meaningful as a functional description than "upright".
Imagine for a moment a world where the recumbent is the "standard" sort
of bike...
"This guy I met had one of those upright bikes, a Burrows 8 Freight, and
he said it was brilliant for moving bulky loads about. I wanted some of
that too, so I researched upright bikes and found this one called a Trek
Madone that everyone raved about as a fantastic machine, so I bought one
and tried to get a trolley-load of shopping home on it. Talk about
crap, it just didn't do what I wanted at all!"
"A recumbent" is not an end point, so there is little to be gained by
finding "one of the better ones" and buying it assuming it will live up
to the best features promised across a range of very different machines.
My 'bent, a tourer, is very good for touring. It isn't much good for
speed, despite speed being something recumbents are /potentially/
superior at. One needs to select a bike by its functional class and its
ability to perform the *function*, like touring, or racing, or carrying
freight, or folding up compactly, or whatever. You don't get that by
deciding you want "an upright bike" or "a recumbent bike". I think a
lot of people who have been disappointed with recumbents had the wrong
machine, because they thought "a recumbent" was one of a functional
class of bikes which is meant to have the speed and handling of a racer,
the all day comfort of a tourer, the nippy handling of an urban bike,
the cargo capacity of a freighter and so on. Nobody makes sweeping
claims for "upright bikes", they are careful to specify the *type* of
bike, and that is even more important with recumbents because they vary
much more than uprights.
I have ridden upright bikes that suck, and I have ridden upright bikes
that were not suitable for all functional purposes (my MTB is horrible
as a town bike, for example, and my freighter doesn't really do it
off-road). That doesn't put me off upright bikes, it simply informs me
that you need the right one for a given job. And it's the same case for
recumbents.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Edward Dolan
>>
>> "Wilson Warmouth" <w...@bikefit.com> wrote in message
>> news:yNSdnSNPLcoOIMDa...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "tam" <tpsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:56h7j.26536$kt3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
>>>> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
>>>> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride
>>>> the word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
>>>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>>>> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>>>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>>>> been reached yet.
>>>> Tam
>>>
>>> Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
>>> limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a
>>> properly fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit
>>> bolt upright on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly
>>> distributed and supported primarily by your arms and legs.
>>
>> Most folks do not have much strength in their arms, especially women.
>> Further, in order to support your body in the drop bar position you also
>> must have sufficient strength in your abdomen, your back, your shoulders
>> and your neck. Again, most folks do not have this requisite strength.
>
> not talking about "most folks". I'm talking about "serious" riders which
> to me means men, women, and children who ride on a regular basis, perhaps
> daily in good weather, maybe with a club on the weekends, along with a
> couple of century rides now and then. Throw in a week long tour or a
> cross state ride for good measure. This pretty much described my riding
> up until a while back when I seem to have decided I'd rather write about
> riding than actually do it. [I don't ride daily or club ride now - but
> what riding I do I still split time between uprights and recumbents]
> People, men or women, who ride seriously are fit to some degree simply
> because they do it. There are many, many people who do this and of those
> I've known only a few of them have ever been in an organized bicycle race.
> None have been professional bike racers.
You have made my points for me better than I could have myself. You have got
to train, or else ride your bike a lot (which is the same thing), in order
to be able to ride at all in comfort. This will exclude everybody except for
the few freaks ("serious riders")who are really into cycling.
> So along with a proper fit you do need to do some training if you want to
> ride long distances. This would be true for upright or recumbent riding.
> But if you've convinced youself that it can't be done in comfort on an
> upright then that is your truth. It isn't my truth. Nor is it the truth
> of multitudes of others.
You do not need to train at all in order to ride a recumbent long distance
and to be perfectly comfortable doing so as long as you have some minimal
cardiovasular fitness. I am your original wimp and I could never do a cross
state bike ride on an upright, but I can easily do it on a recumbent.
>> The saddle should serve more as a perch or
>>> support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle
>>> if you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than
>>> neighborhood riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your
>>> weight and serve as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need
>>> to be properly sized to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.
>>
>> Yet everybody sits on the saddle because they can't support themselves
>> with their arms and legs for very long. Really, only professional racers
>> can ride the road bike the way it was designed to be ridden. And they
>> have to train like hell in order to be able to do it.
>
> See previous response.
>
>
>>
>>> As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the
>>> bones of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of
>>> them I've seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted.
>>> Growth spurts and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper
>>> fit and comfort difficult. I wonder it this could have been your
>>> problem.
>>
>> Kids are never on bikes for more than a few minutes at a time and could
>> care less about fit and comfort. Very funny that you do not know this!
>
>
> Well now if they are riding ill fitting bikes it might follow that they
> would only want to ride them for a short time. Seems to me that more or
> less proves the point. Very funny you don't get this!
I rode bikes all though my childhood in connection with getting around town
and in connection with my newspaper routes. I don't believe I ever once
thought about fit or comfort and I don't know of any other kid that ever did
either. Kids ride bikes stop and go, never continuously for more than 5
minutes at a time.
>>> I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
>>> geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that
>>> discussion for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.
>>
>> There is a single best "ideal" design for a recumbent just as there is
>> for a road bike for racers and a MTB for everyone else who is not a
>> racer. Very funny that you do not know this!
>>
>
> Well Great Saint, it's good to hear that there is single best "ideal"
> design for a recumbent. There's no design consensus among recumbent
> riders or the recumbent industry. We are still wayfaring seekers of that
> Holy Recumbent Grail.
Everybody in the world is too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the
ground. How do you expect them to know anything about bicycles - of all
things!
Tom Sherman of ARBR occasionally says some sensible things about bicycles,
but he has gone astray on short wheelbase and now thinks low racers are the
cat's pajamas. He could not be more wrong of course, but maybe he is having
some fun on them, so I won't begrudge him his second childhood.
Edward Dolan
> tam wrote:
>
>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>> more
>> comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>
> folder or my 8 Freight cargo bike or my MTB, but there's more to
> selecting a bike than absolute comfort: as long as the bike is
> comfortable *enough* for the job it has to do other functional aspects
> can easily trump it. If I'll be doing 10 miles off-road through the
> Cairngorms on rough landy tracks to get to the start of a walk I'll take
> the MTB: it won't be outrageously comfy but it will be okay and I'll get
> where I want to be a great deal quicker and technially more easily than
> if I take my 'bent tourer.
Peter Clinch likes to cover all the bases. Consequently, he ends up never
saying anything worth listening to.
>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>> been
>> reached yet.
>
> There is no such thing, exactly as is the case for uprights. A racer
> has a very different geometry to a Dutch roadster because they have very
> different functional purposes, and you try the geometry of one for the
> function of the other and it is found wanting.
They are the same, a diamond frame with a saddle that you sit on in an
upright position. The differences are not worth mentioning.
The geometry of HP Vel's
> Streetmachine and Spirit are very different. They are both very comfy
> but in different ways, with the Spirit more /immediately/ comfortable
> but the Streetmachine better over the course of 50 miles, thanks to
> better aerodynamics allowing you to do it quicker and more support for
> your back spreading your weight more. Which is "more comfortable"?
> Well, are you going to do 50 miles or 5? because each has a different
> answer as the bikes are designed to suit particular purposes, the Spirit
> for shorter trips and the Streetmachine for longer ones.
Typical Peter Clinch gobbledygook. You listen to this guy and you will
become permanently disoriented about everything under the sun. I wonder if
he was born this way or did he have to work at it?
Edward Dolan
"Rex Kerr" <rex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fjkqhs$nva$1...@aioe.org...
Exactly what was the discomfort? I have never in my life heard a tale of woe
like yours! Are you perhaps of an imbecilic nature? Yea, that would explain
it!
Wilson Warmouth
<snip>
> You do not need to train at all in order to ride a recumbent long distance
> and to be perfectly comfortable doing so as long as you have some minimal
> cardiovasular fitness.
Only Great Saints such as yourself can ride recumbent bikes long distances
with no training. Regular mortals such as myself require training for
centuries and such.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> "A recumbent" is not an end point, so there is little to be gained by
> finding "one of the better ones" and buying it assuming it will live up
> to the best features promised across a range of very different machines.
> My 'bent, a tourer, is very good for touring. It isn't much good for
> speed, despite speed being something recumbents are /potentially/
> superior at. One needs to select a bike by its functional class and its
> ability to perform the *function*, like touring, or racing, or carrying
> freight, or folding up compactly, or whatever. You don't get that by
> deciding you want "an upright bike" or "a recumbent bike". I think a
> lot of people who have been disappointed with recumbents had the wrong
> machine, because they thought "a recumbent" was one of a functional
> class of bikes which is meant to have the speed and handling of a racer,
> the all day comfort of a tourer, the nippy handling of an urban bike,
> the cargo capacity of a freighter and so on. Nobody makes sweeping
> claims for "upright bikes", they are careful to specify the *type* of
> bike, and that is even more important with recumbents because they vary
> much more than uprights.
A recumbent is primarily a recreational bike, good for going any distance in
comfort. I leave it to Peter Clinch to split hairs where none need be split.
Recumbents are not speed machines unless faired. No bike is any good at
carrying heavy loads.
Upright bikes fall into two categories - the road bike for racers and the
ATB for everyone else. You will never be comfortable on either of them, so
they do have that in common.
> I have ridden upright bikes that suck, and I have ridden upright bikes
> that were not suitable for all functional purposes (my MTB is horrible
> as a town bike, for example, and my freighter doesn't really do it
> off-road). That doesn't put me off upright bikes, it simply informs me
> that you need the right one for a given job. And it's the same case for
> recumbents.
All upright bikes suck because they are uncomfortable after a few miles. A
recreational recumbent is as all-purpose as you can ever get on a bike. I
recommend long wheelbase above seat steering. It will do 99% of whatever you
want a bike to do.
Edward Dolan
"Wilson Warmouth" <w...@jibeloo.com> wrote in message
news:UJOdnRrnzeyzJcPa...@comcast.com...
I have only done one century in my life. I decided then and there that
centuries are strictly for idiots. But hey, you like to wear yourself out
doing something really stupid, be my guest. This just goes to my main point
that so-called "serious" cyclists do not have the brains they were born
with.
A very nice distance to do on a supported group bike tour is about 70 miles
a day. Any more than that and it becomes stupid - fit only for idiots and
"serious" cyclists (one and the same)!
Edward Dolan
>
>> Yes Wilson I would agree wholeheartedly!!!!! SOME training is more
>> than needed. I thought I could just jump on my trike and ride for
>> miles. Second day I had it I put 40 miles on it. MAN....was I worn
>> out and had a few sore muscles.
>>
>> YES a bit of training and/or riding on a daily basis would be of GREAT
>> help.
>>
>> As I mentioned before, I plonked Ed Dolan a LONG LONG time ago due to
>> his assinine (sp) comments. I don't even see the posts.
>> ((fortunately)) I'll only respond to those that have a bit of common
>> sense.
Old Harry of Nebraska should plonk himself and give the rest of us some
relief from his asininities. Does he not have some cornhusking to do.
> I'm not clear on how far a long distance on a recumbent bike might be to
> the Great Saint. I've never had much luck having two way conversations
> with Great Saints and I'm not holding my breath for success with this one.
Centuries are for idiots and "serious cyclists" which are one and the same.
60 to 70 miles in one day is plenty for a "long distance." Do that every day
for a week and you can cross most states.
Saint Edward the Great is my alter ego that I keep in reserve for encounters
with immoral hedonists. So far, you do not fall into that category, but
beware - Saint Edward the Great is a most terrible Saint and even Ed Dolan
the Great fears Him. If I were you, I would not rile Him. Nay, let a
sleeping Saint lie!
[...]
tam
>>
>> I'm in that camp. I lusted over recumbents for a long time before
>> finally buying one. A V-Rex with upgraded components. (supposedly
>> one of the better recumbents) Anyhow, I was enamored with it at
>> first, but it wore off. I eventually sold it because the promises
>> didn't pan out, and I found the bike to be, overall, less comfortable
>> than my upright bikes, especially on longer rides!
>
1 Seat angle
2 Distance from seat back to crank centre.
3 Crank length.
4 Crank centre to ground that suits me.
I find that even 1/2 inch makes a big difference to comfort on my recumbent
trike over 3 hours touring.
Tam
ZBicyclist
Just like an upright (although the exact parts to be adjusted differ)
--
Mike Kruger
the CIA created more controversy today by acknowledging that it
accidentally returned several interrogation tapes to Blockbuster.
[Andy Borowitz]
Peter Clinch
> tam wrote:
>> I have found over the years the exact configuration of
>> 1 Seat angle
>> 2 Distance from seat back to crank centre.
>> 3 Crank length.
>> 4 Crank centre to ground that suits me.
>> I find that even 1/2 inch makes a big difference to comfort on my
>> recumbent trike over 3 hours touring.
>> Tam
>
> Just like an upright (although the exact parts to be adjusted differ)
I actually find I'm fussier on an upright than I am on my 'bent. My
wife was suffering a bit of achilles rub at the end of a week's touring
so we swapped bikes for a change in position (mine is more higher with a
more upright seat angle). The only factor of discomfort I had from
changing 1, 3 and 4 in Tam's list was a bit of a tug on the hamstrings
because she has longer legs than I do.
I'd say ZBicyclist is right on the money suggesting that a 'bent isn't
intrinsically different from a wedgie as regards needing to tuning for
the rider.
Rex Kerr
> Exactly what was the discomfort? I have never in my life heard a tale of woe
> like yours! Are you perhaps of an imbecilic nature? Yea, that would explain
> it!
Imbecilic? Exactly! You've got me figured out! Darn, my secret is
out! BTW, saying that I find an upright bike to be more comfortable
isn't a very grandiose tale of woe.