Is Touring Dying?
Jon Bell
newcomers to cycling from attempting long recreational rides (say 30-40
miles and up)?
Two lines of thought which lead to this question converged while I was
riding this morning.
First line of thought: Nowadays, a newcomer who is not interested in
road racing will probably buy a mountain bike or a hybrid, even if
he/she is not going to do much off-road riding. These bikes are OK for
short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
wide tires) start to work against them. Since I've never ridden an MTB
or hybrid for a long distance, I can't speak from personal experience,
but I've heard and read that on long rides, those bikes are signifi-
cantly less comfortable than real road bikes.
This would seem to discourage most newcomers from attempting rides
beyond a certain distance, and the few who do want to continue would
have to buy new bikes specifically for these trips.
When I started bicycling seriously in the late '70s, this wasn't the
case. Nobody outside of Marin County, California had heard of mountain
bikes then. A newcomer usually bought a "sport touring" bike, which had
a frame and components intermediate between the true racing bike and the
all-out cross-country touring bike. With this kind of bike, a rider
could gradually move up to longer and longer distances simply by
training, improving his/her riding style, and fine-tuning the "fit" of
the bicycle.
This was in fact how I got into serious recreational cycling, and I
still have my 1980 Miyata "sport tourer". This summer I started
shopping for a better bike, and I found that there are very few road
bikes on the market that are not aimed at racers or triathletes, and
most of them are expensive. How many newcomers are going to spend (say)
$800 for a Trek 1200 when they can get a decent MTB or hybrid for $300
to $400? That's assuming they even _see_ something like a Trek 1200.
In three bike shops within driving distance I found exactly _one_ non-
racing road bike. (I ended up buying a Trek 520 while I was on vacation
in San Francisco. Even there, touring bikes aren't very common in the
shops.)
Second line of thought: Recreational touring cyclists seem to be almost
invisible as far as the general news media and even much of the cycling
media are concerned. This morning I read an article in one of our
"local" papers, _The_State_ (Columbia SC), about local racing cyclists.
Granted, this article _was_ specifically about racing (undoubtedly
stimulated by the Tour de France), but someone who doesn't know much
about cycling would get from it the distinct impression that there are
three kinds of cyclists: the off-road riders on MTBs, the people who
noodle around the block every once in a while, and the racers. Most
bicycling magazines seem to focus mainly on competitive cyclists. In
general, it seems to me that in many places, potential cyclists don't
"see" other cyclists who ride long distances for the fun of it, and
don't see it as something they ought to at least try for themselves.
Does anybody else see these things happening, or have I just been
getting paranoid since moving out here to the boondocks? :-) In
particular, what's been happening in the large touring-oriented bike
clubs? Are they noticing any falloff in interest in their longer rides
(say 50 miles and up)?
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Chuck Anderson
>Does the current state of the bicycle market actually discourage
>newcomers to cycling from attempting long recreational rides (say 30-40
>miles and up)?
I don't think so.
>First line of thought:.........
>.......................................[MTBs]... These bikes are OK for
>short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
>them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
>wide tires) start to work against them.
I don't think so.
> Since I've never ridden an MTB
>or hybrid for a long distance, I can't speak from personal experience,
I thought so.
>but I've heard and read that on long rides, those bikes are signifi-
>cantly less comfortable than real road bikes.
Not in my experience.
I rode 1,000 miles, averaging over 60 per day on my $350 MB6 (Bridgestone).
It felt great. I liked the versatility of the MTB (no worries on gravel or
when I had to get off the road for passing log trucks). I like sitting more
upright. My road bike makes me feel too much like my nose is to the grind.
--
*************************************************************************
Chuck Anderson uucp : uunet!nyx!canderso
Boulder, CO internet: cand...@nyx.cs.du.edu
*************************************************************************
Michael Halle
I'll argue that the popularity of MTBs will help touring, rather than
hurt it.
MTB-style bikes offer beginners relatively rugged, durable and safe
transportation in city and suburban areas. For many people, MTBs make
it easier to justify purchasing a bike, because they seem sturdy and
practical. Those people might never have bought road bikes, because
they didn't think they would get enough use out of them. The MTB
allows them to go places that would be challenging on a road bike
(like parks and trails). And they are fine on the roads that go to
those places.
Just because the bike they have isn't optimal for a particular type of
riding, doesn't mean it can't do it. You can tour on an MTB, but it
is overbuilt for the task, and you might not be able to go as far or
at the same level of comfort. If you take a road bike off-road, it
is underbuilt for the task, and you risk mechanical damage and
significant discomfort.
Any particular bike can do about 75% percent of the riding activities
you could ever want to do. In contrast, someone without a bike can't
do any riding activities. Get someone on a bike, and he or she is
much more likely to become interested in biking, exploring, and maybe
day trips or touring. If someone actually uses their MTB enough to go
on trips and finds the bike presents too much drag or is too
uncomfortable, the bike bug has already bit. These people know that
they use and enjoy their bikes and can consider justifying the cost of
another one, either to replace or to augment their MTB. And "second
time buyers" are more experienced and familiar with their riding
style and the marketplace, so they are more likely to buy a higher
quality product.
The MTB rash of the 80's and 90's, in addition to spinning off a
unique sport of its own (with unique racing and touring facets
itself), may mark a "baby-boom" of bicycling that may revitalize the
other aspects of the sport, including traditional touring.
--Michael Halle
hal...@media.mit.edu
Bill Silvert
>I rode 1,000 miles, averaging over 60 per day on my $350 MB6 (Bridgestone).
>It felt great. I liked the versatility of the MTB (no worries on gravel or
>when I had to get off the road for passing log trucks). I like sitting more
>upright. My road bike makes me feel too much like my nose is to the grind.
A chacun son gout (French for "Everybody gets sore joints"). Sure you
can ride 100 km/day on a MB or hybrid, and many people like sitting up
while they ride (there was a fantastic cyclist, a German I think, who
went around the world a couple of times on a sit-up-and-beg). But there
is a reason for the design of the classic touring bike, and as an
out-of-shape office worker in his fifties who likes to crank out up to
150 km/day on a regular basis when I travel, a MB just doesn't do it.
And I'm a bad climber under the best of conditions, and I really need
the climbing positions that I can use on a touring bike (take a look at
the TdF riders when they get to the mountains, tourists can climb that
way too).
Chuck also mentions performance on rough roads and gravel. I've got two
touring bikes, one a tight high-performance frame with a short wheelbase
and 25 mm tires, but for heavy touring under rough conditions I have a
nice long touring bike with 32 mm tires that is great on bad roads.
Unfortunately it is getting increasingly difficult to find stock touring
bikes. I'm tall and want a 64 cm frame, and they are almost extinct.
So the next touring bike will have to be a custom model. Expensive, but
even though I've got a couple of nice MBs, I can't really enjoy riding
more than about 50 km/day on one.
--
William Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division, Bedford Inst. of Oceanography
P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2. Tel. (902)426-1577
InterNet Address: sil...@biome.bio.ns.ca
Jon Bell
>MTB-style bikes offer beginners relatively rugged, durable and safe
>transportation in city and suburban areas. For many people, MTBs make
>it easier to justify purchasing a bike, because they seem sturdy and
>practical. Those people might never have bought road bikes, because
>they didn't think they would get enough use out of them. The MTB
>allows them to go places that would be challenging on a road bike
>(like parks and trails). And they are fine on the roads that go to
>those places.
I definitely agree MTB's and hybrids are a good thing for cycling as a
whole. They're well suited for the cycling that most people do. Heck,
they're probably better suited for the around-town riding I do than
my touring bike is; when I finally get rid of my old "sport tourer"
I'll probably replace it with an MTB. So I'm certainly not looking to
ban MTB's or anything like that.
Despite my enthusiasm for long-distance touring, I recognize that it's
only a small part of the "cycling universe." But, precisely because
relatively few people engage in it, it's important to cultivate
prospective new enthusiasts. I'd hate to see bike and equipment
manufacturers pay even less attention to us than they do now.
> [...] If someone actually uses their MTB enough to go
>on trips and finds the bike presents too much drag or is too
>uncomfortable, the bike bug has already bit. These people know that
>they use and enjoy their bikes and can consider justifying the cost of
>another one, either to replace or to augment their MTB. And "second
>time buyers" are more experienced and familiar with their riding
>style and the marketplace, so they are more likely to buy a higher
>quality product.
I'm hoping that's the way it will turn out. In fact, now that I think
of it, that's sort of the way it happened with me. My first bike was
a secondhand "beater bike." It was fine around town, but when I
started riding with a bike club I realized its shortcomings for longer
rides. Also, doing my own maintainance on it made me appreciate what
good components would mean. That led me to buy that Miyata, which was
my first "good" bike (even though it wasn't all that good).
What I'm worrying about is that any discomfort on long rides with MTB's
might turn some people off from what can be a very enjoyable experience
with the right equipment. I suppose the answer here is education:
making people aware that there _are_ significant differences in how well
different kinds of bikes perform in various kinds of riding, and having
visible examples of people who enjoy various kinds of riding. That's where
the media comes in. There are probably a lot of new cyclists who
don't read the cycling media and may not be aware of the possibilities
if they depend on the general media which focuses on competitive
cycling or casual cycling when it looks at cycling at all.
Christian A Lindensmith-1
>Does the current state of the bicycle market actually discourage
>newcomers to cycling from attempting long recreational rides (say 30-40
>miles and up)?
I don't think so.
>
>First line of thought: Nowadays, a newcomer who is not interested in
>road racing will probably buy a mountain bike or a hybrid, even if
>he/she is not going to do much off-road riding. These bikes are OK for
>short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
>them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
>wide tires) start to work against them. Since I've never ridden an MTB
>or hybrid for a long distance, I can't speak from personal experience,
>but I've heard and read that on long rides, those bikes are signifi-
>cantly less comfortable than real road bikes.
Yes it's true that many shops don't even carry a decent selection of road
and touring bikes, but I think that MTBs and hybrids can be a decent
introduction to touring, and even long distance touring.
I started biking again to commute, and bought a mountain bike to do it
about 4 years ago. It wasn't even a particularly good one (second from
the bottom Peugeot) but it worked fine. I like riding a lot, and started
trying longer distances. My first ride over 10 miles was boston to
provincetown (foolish, but I made it with only losing feeling in two fingers
for a few months) and aside from the numb fingers I had a very good time and
managed to drop a whole lot of roadies who were going the same day. The
low gears and the easy to reach thumbshifters were great on the hills when
I was tired. All I really lacked for long distance touring was bar ends
and gloves. I know someone else who rode from boston to minneapolis on a
mountain bike.
I moved to Mpls shortly after the cape cod and started to ride a lot with
American Youth Hostels on medium to long rides, still on the mountain
bike. My SO and I were riding up to 120 miles including the trip to and
from the ride when we finally decided that we were riding so much we ought
to get road bikes so that we could keep up with the leaders.
Lots (well quite a few) people show up on these rides on mountain and
hybrid bikes, and more as biking becomes more popular. The only drawback
I've noticed so far is the lack of hand positions, but nearly all medium
to high, and a lot of low end ATBs come with bar ends now. Most cross
bikes come with reasonable touring tires, and many mountain bikes do as well.
(stuff about "sport touring" bikes deleted)
>most of them are expensive. How many newcomers are going to spend (say)
>$800 for a Trek 1200 when they can get a decent MTB or hybrid for $300
>to $400? That's assuming they even _see_ something like a Trek 1200.
>In three bike shops within driving distance I found exactly _one_ non-
>racing road bike. (I ended up buying a Trek 520 while I was on vacation
>in San Francisco. Even there, touring bikes aren't very common in the
>shops.)
Not many people are going to spend the money for a Trek 1200, but they
don't really need to either. If you take reasonable mountain (or
epecially a good cross-) bike and pump up the tires and put on drop bars
you have a decent sport touring bike. You don't even need the drops, just
bar ends, and the fat tires are really nice around the city where the
potholes can swallow small cars. There are lots of fat tires that perform
well over a wide range of pressures, so you can let them out a little for
the potholes, or pump them up hard for long rides in the country, or you
can just ride one set of tires chosen for whatever you do the most. The
shifters on mountain bikes are a big advantage. If you have to reach to
shift you'll do it less often if you aren't very comfortable on the bike,
and biking will be more work than it has to be. I've seen people trying
to push big gears up hills while I go click-click-click keeping a
constant cadence. Better road riders shift more, but still less than ATB
riders. I seem to shift a lot more on my road bike as a result of getting
used to shifting a lot on the mountain bike.
>
>Second line of thought: Recreational touring cyclists seem to be almost
>invisible as far as the general news media and even much of the cycling
>media are concerned. This morning I read an article in one of our
>"local" papers, _The_State_ (Columbia SC), about local racing cyclists.
>Granted, this article _was_ specifically about racing (undoubtedly
>stimulated by the Tour de France), but someone who doesn't know much
>about cycling would get from it the distinct impression that there are
>three kinds of cyclists: the off-road riders on MTBs, the people who
>noodle around the block every once in a while, and the racers. Most
>bicycling magazines seem to focus mainly on competitive cyclists. In
>general, it seems to me that in many places, potential cyclists don't
>"see" other cyclists who ride long distances for the fun of it, and
>don't see it as something they ought to at least try for themselves.
Yeah, there isn't much visibilty for touring, and the only reason I knew
that AYH had organized rides was because they picked the same day I did to
ride to provincetown, and a rode with some of them for a while. AYH seems
to be the primary touring club in minneapolis, and has a monthly
activities newsletter for the separate bike activities that is free at all
the bike shops. The rides are open to anybody for $2, or $1 if you're a
member. There seems to be some visibility, since I went on a "C" (*very*
slow) ride recently and more than half the people had never been on an AYH
ride before. I think that most of the publicity for these comes from a
couple of big rides each year (Aquatennial and Ironman century) and word
of mouth/newsletters.
>Does anybody else see these things happening, or have I just been
>getting paranoid since moving out here to the boondocks? :-) In
>particular, what's been happening in the large touring-oriented bike
>clubs? Are they noticing any falloff in interest in their longer rides
>(say 50 miles and up)?
It's just you :-) I haven't been doing it long enough to know if it's
dropping off, but from my perspective things seem to be picking up.
Mountain bike sales are huge, probably more people are actually riding
since its easier to get an ATB reasonably comfortable if you don't know
what you're doing, and biking in general is actually getting more
publicity.
There was a commentary in Buycycling a few months ago about how everybody
thinks ATB when they say bike now, but that things will probably evolve
more towards cross/touring bikes as people realize that ATBs aren't the
best for road riding, but they do have many appealing features.
The ATB really was a revolution in bike technology (or at least caused
one) and bike makers are experimenting with all sorts of things that
racers would never buy, but might be nice for the occasional tourer.
Biking is getting more popular as a recreational activity, and it's just a
matter of time before touring re-develops out of it, although maybe with
flat bars (or weird ones like on the Bridgestone XO- bikes) and cantilever
brakes for stopping the loaded panniers on wet hills.
Chris Lindensmith
lind...@student.tc.umn.edu
University of Minnesota
Radek Aster x211
> First line of thought: Nowadays, a newcomer who is not interested in
> road racing will probably buy a mountain bike or a hybrid, even if
> he/she is not going to do much off-road riding. These bikes are OK for
> short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
> them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
> wide tires) start to work against them. Since I've never ridden an MTB
> or hybrid for a long distance, I can't speak from personal experience,
> but I've heard and read that on long rides, those bikes are signifi-
> cantly less comfortable than real road bikes.
Two comments.
(1) I have toured extensively on "mountain bikes" but not with
straight bars. As you stated, stock "mountain bikes" are not good for
long distance touring. I would recommend replacing straight bars with
drops or adding bar ends, in order to have a choice of hand positions.
Other than that I would recommend "mountain bikes" for touring. They
are built to take more abuse and it's a lot easier to find both smooth
and off-road tires for 26" wheels than for 700c wheels.
(2) You seem to think there are only three kinds of bikes; upright
road/racing, hybrid, and "mountain bikes". Have you ever considered a
recumbent for long distance touring ? Ever since I got one I don't
think I could tour on anything else.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, Radek Aster email : ras...@isi.com
<(*)>--(*)/'(*) ISI/SCG Technical Support tel : (408) 980-1500 x 211
fax : (408) 980-0400
@ ___ Integrated Systems Inc.
_ \ _\ 3260 Jay St.
(*)-^+-(*) Santa Clara CA 95054-3309
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J Unglenieks
> First line of thought: Nowadays, a newcomer who is not interested in
> road racing will probably buy a mountain bike or a hybrid, even if
> he/she is not going to do much off-road riding. These bikes are OK for
> short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
> them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
> wide tires) start to work against them.
I've been reading some replies (and a flame) to these original comments and
have one of my own. Many people who have quibbles with the comments bring
out a personal observation or two, well, here's mine: a few years back we
had 4 people riding MTB's with our team on RAGBRAI. The year after they tried
that, they were all on road bikes. None of them regret the change.
And as another observation, I noticed more people walking MTB's over the gravel
sections than people walking road bikes. Go figure.
Rob U, Team Skunk (see you on RAGBRAI in 2 weeks!)
--
- Rob Unglenieks REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES -
- "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes. There is no -
- native criminal class except Congress." [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] -
- (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton. Will Engineer For Food.) -
Bill Silvert
>If you take a road bike off-road, it
>is underbuilt for the task, and you risk mechanical damage and
>significant discomfort.
A misconception based on differences in quality. If you take a cheap
mountain bike off road it will probably hold up while an equally cheap
department store special will break up. A quality touring bike,
especially one with hand-built wheels, should hold up to just about
anything.
And touring bikes come in different frame styles (as do mountain bikes).
For off-road work you want an easy frame, perhaps with angles as low as
72 degrees, long chainstays and wheelbase, etc.
Jon Bell
>
>(2) You seem to think there are only three kinds of bikes; upright
>road/racing, hybrid, and "mountain bikes". Have you ever considered a
>recumbent for long distance touring ? Ever since I got one I don't
>think I could tour on anything else.
I have to admit I didn't think of recumbents. I haven't even _seen_ one
since I moved down here in '85. But I _have_ known people who rode
recumbents, and I've always wondered what a long ride on one would be
like. Recumbents do tend to be expensive, though.
Jon Bell
>And as another observation, I noticed more people walking MTB's over the gravel
>sections than people walking road bikes. Go figure.
That definitely sounds weird. On my old "sport tourer", with 27x1.25" tires,
I can handle some gravel roads, but it isn't very pleasant, and I try to
avoid them. Fortunately most of the back roads here are paved (although
the surface can be rather coarse).
>Rob U, Team Skunk (see you on RAGBRAI in 2 weeks!)
The way things are going, you'll be doing part of the ride underwater...
Robert Domine Noyes
our are correct in your observation thath touring seems to be a dying
category as far as marketing goes. I have seen little offered for sale. It
seems that MTB and *hybrids* are the areas that are being pushed. But, I am
not bicycle-makret-ad driven and am taking a 4 week tour of France in
September. The gear is easy - same as backpacking or MTB'ing - and my bike
, an old Miyata 600 is fine.
I have answered rthis beforte reading the long list of responses. I am sure
they are all similar.
S. Marshall
|> Jon -
|>
|> our are correct in your observation thath touring seems to be a dying
|> category as far as marketing goes. I have seen little offered for sale. It
|> seems that MTB and *hybrids* are the areas that are being pushed. B
By contrast, touring seems to be returning a little in this country -
MTB manufacturers such as Ridgeback adding a tourer to their line, for example.
The Edinburgh bike shop magazine also noted a recent increase in their popularity and
wondered if they appealed because they were less tempting to theives ! Seems to
be a tricky circle that people don't buy them because they don't see them in bike shops
so the shops continue not to stock them.
Just to respond to the "you can't tour on an MTB" line too - on a charity ride of
20 cyclists doing 700+ miles in a week, the MTB folk coped just fine, and they
were mainly pretty inexperinced riders (otherwise they'd have know better :-)
Sam
Donald A. Varvel
>In article <CA0LF...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ungl...@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>>And as another observation, I noticed more people walking MTB's over the gravel
>>sections than people walking road bikes. Go figure.
>That definitely sounds weird. On my old "sport tourer", with 27x1.25" tires,
>I can handle some gravel roads, but it isn't very pleasant, and I try to
>avoid them. Fortunately most of the back roads here are paved (although
>the surface can be rather coarse).
I find it a little weird, too. I not only won't but *can't* ride in
loose gravel on my road bike, whereas, depending on the gravel, I can
usually manage it on the mountain bike. Embedded gravel is another
matter.
Several years ago on one of my long bicycle rides in Texas I asked at
a country store whether a particular road was paved. The storekeeper
answered, "I don't remember whether it's paved or not, but it's a
good road and you should take it." I took it.
The road turned out to be caliche. For some reason they build roads
out of the stuff in Texas. It's fair-sized stones in a lime clay.
In the rain it turns into slippery goo. Dry, it's the moral equivalent
of cobblestones. My road bike took a pounding and I took a pounding
until I realized I wasn't going to get anywhere very fast anyway and
slowed down to about 5 mph.
It *was* a good road. I saw scissor-tailed flycatchers, snakes,
lizards, rabbits, deer, and some wonderful friendly people.
I think I'd have gotten home faster on the mountain bike, though.
-- Don Varvel (var...@cs.utexas.edu)
Joshua_Putnam
>In article <1993Jul10.1...@presby.edu> jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
>>First line of thought: Nowadays, a newcomer who is not interested in
>>road racing will probably buy a mountain bike or a hybrid, even if
>>he/she is not going to do much off-road riding. These bikes are OK for
>>short road trips, but as the distance increases, the factors which make
>>them attractive originally (upright posture, straight handlebars, soft
>>wide tires) start to work against them. Since I've never ridden an MTB
>>or hybrid for a long distance, I can't speak from personal experience,
>>but I've heard and read that on long rides, those bikes are signifi-
>>cantly less comfortable than real road bikes.
In the organized moderate-to-long rides I've been on, many
mountain bikes were in use, usually adapted to road conditions.
Take a look at multi-day charity rides, which often have lots of
beginners riding for the cause. On last year's Great Escape
through the North Cascades Highway to the Idaho border, there
were more than a dozen mountain bikes in the ~100 bike group,
including one with full knobbies and no bar ends. They all
finished the ~400 mile trip comfortably, much more easily I
suspect than the guy on the entry-level road bike, a Murray
Doctor Pepper with steel rims and 1-3/8" tires. At least the
mountain bikers mostly used toe clips and stiff-soled shoes.
For the mountain bikers who decide that long road rides are fun,
there's a choice between refitting the mountain bike for touring
and buying a touring bike. Many opt for the mountain bike refit,
ending up with a durable, comfortable, mixed-breed hybrid. Many
mountain bikes are well-suited for touring use, though the more
aggressive racing mountain bikes are less suitable than mid-level
cross-country cruising models. These bikes generally come with
rack braze-ons and even mid-fork bosses for low-riders, sometimes
three water bottle mounts, and sealed components suitable for
long rides in imperfect weather.
>There was a commentary in Buycycling a few months ago about how everybody
>thinks ATB when they say bike now, but that things will probably evolve
>more towards cross/touring bikes as people realize that ATBs aren't the
>best for road riding, but they do have many appealing features.
>The ATB really was a revolution in bike technology (or at least caused
>one) and bike makers are experimenting with all sorts of things that
>racers would never buy, but might be nice for the occasional tourer.
Like the Bridgestone catalog once said about bar-end shifters --
they used to be looked down on as something only tourists used,
then people noticed that tourists rode a lot of miles and might
have good reasons for using the shifters.
>Biking is getting more popular as a recreational activity, and it's just a
>matter of time before touring re-develops out of it, although maybe with
>flat bars (or weird ones like on the Bridgestone XO- bikes) and cantilever
>brakes for stopping the loaded panniers on wet hills.
While the hard-core roadies and mountain bikers love to slam them
as worthless compromises, hybrids are a very hot market segment.
Drop bars aren't as common on stock hybrids as they were a couple
of years ago, but bar ends make up for some of the missing hand
positions.
As for cantilevers, lots of good touring bikes used cantilevers
before hybrids were named. Mostly Mafac and Weinmann, not the
big names these days, but good brakes. I still work on them
frequently when people bring in their old touring bikes for an
annual physical before summer vacation.
--
Joshua...@happy-man.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x102
4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108
We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor. NextMail OK
Info. packet free. Send POSTAL address: Solid...@Happy-Man.com
Curt Vaughan
> might turn some people off from what can be a very enjoyable experience
> with the right equipment. I suppose the answer here is education:
A great deal of potential discomfort arising from long-distance riding on
mountain bikes can be minimized by add-ons such as bar-ends or even
aero-bars. This gives you a sturdy, durable bike with multiple hand positions
and plenty of gears for loaded hill-climbing. It's main disadvantage over
road bikes is likely to be greater rolling resistance and weight. Of course,
adding aero-bars to a mtb will probably give all the jersey-pro roadies
yet another reason to get snotty, but those types are generally snotty to
touring and recreational riders anyhow.
-
Curt Vaughan
Email: ccf...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Bill Silvert
>A great deal of potential discomfort arising from long-distance riding on
>mountain bikes can be minimized by add-ons such as bar-ends or even
>aero-bars. This gives you a sturdy, durable bike with multiple hand positions
>and plenty of gears for loaded hill-climbing. It's main disadvantage over
>road bikes is likely to be greater rolling resistance and weight.
Actually you can make a nice touring bike out of a mountain bike by
switching to drop bars, narrow tires, and a different frame geometry.
John Vandermeer
>
>I'll argue that the popularity of MTBs will help touring, rather than
>hurt it.
>
>MTB-style bikes offer beginners relatively rugged, durable and safe
>transportation in city and suburban areas. For many people, MTBs make
>it easier to justify purchasing a bike, because they seem sturdy and
>practical. Those people might never have bought road bikes, because
>they didn't think they would get enough use out of them.
>Any particular bike can do about 75% percent of the riding activities
>you could ever want to do. In contrast, someone without a bike can't
>do any riding activities. Get someone on a bike, and he or she is
>much more likely to become interested in biking, exploring, and maybe
>day trips or touring. If someone actually uses their MTB enough to go
>on trips and finds the bike presents too much drag or is too
>uncomfortable, the bike bug has already bit. These people know that
>they use and enjoy their bikes and can consider justifying the cost of
>another one, either to replace or to augment their MTB. And "second
>time buyers" are more experienced and familiar with their riding
>style and the marketplace, so they are more likely to buy a higher
>quality product.
Two co-workers are in exactly this situation. They have MTBs because
they felt safer with them to start with or because of the lower
investment. But now they want road bikes to go further and faster.
Think of MTBs as a filter, low financial risk to find out whether this
biking stuff is right for them. Then at some point they can either
move up or bail out. Or, in a lot of cases, the MTB or hybrid is
exactly what they need and works well for years.
73 John VanderMeer
j...@fuji.sps.mot.com
Scott Byer
I agree with John & Michael; better to have these people try out
biking on an MTB, of which a comfortable one can be had for low
cost, than to have them discouraged with a junker bike.
A decent tourer is going to be at least $500, which is rather a
significant comittment. But for those who fall in love with the
sport from their (hopefully pleasant) MTB experience, it's a small
price to pay for long-distance comfort.
Also, owning multiple bikes is simply not that big a deal. It's
rather easy to find garage space for them. Or wall space :-).
So we're probably in that in-between state right now; there are
probably lots of people who own MTBs who are starting to think about
moving up to a touring vehicle. I bet that design will reappear
(they can be found, but it takes some looking, and it's usually not
in the local bike store).
--
Scott Byer NeXTMail: by...@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated These are *my* opinions, and
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900 do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900 the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Beagle
>Think of MTBs as a filter, low financial risk to find out whether this
>biking stuff is right for them. Then at some point they can either
>move up or bail out. Or, in a lot of cases, the MTB or hybrid is
>exactly what they need and works well for years.
Exactly. I bought a "mountain bike" (really a city bike in mountain
bike style) that was cheap and nasty. It wasn't expensive and I wasn't
intending to ride it much...
Currently I have a mid-range hybrid bike that suits what I want to do
quite well. On the other hand, when I get the money I'll be buying a
road bike that I'll use as well as my hybrid.
I'm sort of hooked, although I'm getting damn sick of winter... :-(
--
Thomas Beagle | tho...@datamark.co.nz Work:64 4 2338186 Home:64 4 4993832
Technical Writer | He had the lips of a man who knew much about
Wellington, NZ | pleasure and little about restraint.
Donald A. Varvel
>In article <1993Jul13....@newsgate.sps.mot.com> j...@fuji.sps.mot.com (John Vandermeer) writes:
>>Think of MTBs as a filter, low financial risk to find out whether this
>>biking stuff is right for them. Then at some point they can either
>>move up or bail out. Or, in a lot of cases, the MTB or hybrid is
>>exactly what they need and works well for years.
>Exactly. I bought a "mountain bike" (really a city bike in mountain
>bike style) that was cheap and nasty. It wasn't expensive and I wasn't
>intending to ride it much...
>Currently I have a mid-range hybrid bike that suits what I want to do
>quite well. On the other hand, when I get the money I'll be buying a
>road bike that I'll use as well as my hybrid.
I tried to go in the other direction. When I bent the frame of a cheap
12-speed trying to ride on the Barton Creek Greenbelt (ran into a boulder
while messing with toeclips), I felt I had to replace it with another
road bike. I got a Cannondale racing bike. I tried it on the Greenbelt
a time or two, but always got "snakebite" flats before I got very far.
Several times I locked the bike to a tree and walked the Greenbelt. Then
a couple of summers ago I found I could afford a mountain bike.
I discovered that I could get from one end to the other of the Greenbelt
without mechanical problems. It was difficult to carry enough water, but
that's another matter. On principle I rode the bike to and from the head
of the trail, which more than doubled the length of the ride. I found
that while I enjoyed riding (and carrying) the bike on the Greenbelt, I
didn't enjoy the street riding to and from nearly as much as I would have
on the road bike, which after all is designed for it. In addition, I
quickly discovered that the Greenbelt is about the *only* place in Austin
I can't ride just as easily on the road bike.
I ride the mountain bike from time to time to make sure it's in good
adjustment. I ride the road bike every day for basic transportation and
exercise.
I'm really not a "road Nazi". I understand the attraction of being able
to ride anywhere. The Greenbelt is fun, and certainly far more exercise
per mile than the streets. For me, though, the *basic* bicycle will
always be the road bike. When I lend a bike to a friend, it's always
the mountain bike because I won't be without the road bike.
On seats and handlebars: The case has already been made for narrow seats.
I'll make a case now for drop bars. Climbing out of the saddle is best
done on a mountain bike using barends, and on a road bike on the brake
hoods. Climbing *in* the saddle is done on the mountain bike's regular
bars or the "tops" of the drop bars. The position the mountain bike
doesn't have is the drops. Most people expect it to be uncomfortable.
If you feel you have to be facing what you're looking at, it is. One of
the tricks is to develop upward peripheral vision. Another is to get
into a relaxed "hands and knees" position. It shouldn't be thought of
as crouching or bending. It's resting. Besides being aerodynamic, I
find it's the most *comfortable* position on the bike.
I also think there's a lot to be said for a 1-speed bomber, but my knees
are no longer up to riding one.
-- Don Varvel (var...@cs.utexas.edu)
Ed Gryga - Marquette University
bought it because I liked the feel of it. Because I would be doing mainly road
riding, I replaced the tires with narrower tires, that were not knobby.
My main question is ... Would this type of bike be appropriate for a long
distance trek (such as a coast to coast tour). Would I find it hard and
uncomfortable after a while? Should I invest in a actual road touring bike
for this purpose? What type of bike would be ideal for a long trek?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@@ @@@ @@@@ @@@@ Edmund T. Gryga
@@@ @@@ @@ @@ Programmer/Analyst
@@@@ @@@@ @@ @@ Computer Services Division
@@ @@@@ @@ @@ @@ 517 North 14th Street
@@ @@ @@ @@ @@ Marquette University
Scott Byer
> My main question is ... Would this type of bike be appropriate
> for a long distance trek (such as a coast to coast tour). Would
> I find it hard and uncomfortable after a while? Should I invest
> in a actual road touring bike for this purpose? What type of
> bike would be ideal for a long trek?
A touring bike. These typically have a longer wheelbase (for
straight-line stability), eyelets everywhere so you can attach racks
and then attach everything to them including the kitchen sink.
They'll have sturdy wheels, with strong spokes to hold up under the
loaded weight. Often they'll also have a third chainring, for
getting that fully loaded bike up a mountain. Aero bars help make
long, straight stretches comfortable, and the hand-position options
provided by drop bars are a must IMO for really long rides. Slightly
wider (1-1/4" to 1-1/2") tires for comfort (greater air capacity
may increase rolling resistance, but can absorb them small bumps
that eventually begin to feel like mountains bruising your butt).
Seat and fit are important. A good, thin-cross-section gel seat
is a must. If it's too wide, it sits under your butt-bones where
it'll bruise you badly after a day of riding. The seat really has
to be at the right height or you will rock your hips or trash your
knees.
Just rememeber that a long day riding magnifies any discomfort
tremendously.
That's if you want to stay upright. I suspect there are touring
recumbents available - does anyone have experience with these?
Susan Hough
>Ed Gryga - Marquette University writes
>
>> My main question is ... Would this type of bike be appropriate
>> for a long distance trek (such as a coast to coast tour). Would
>
>straight-line stability), eyelets everywhere so you can attach racks
>and then attach everything to them including the kitchen sink.
>They'll have sturdy wheels, with strong spokes to hold up under the
>loaded weight. Often they'll also have a third chainring, for
This gets to a question that I have. I also have a hybrid (17" frame)
and I weigh ~133 lbs--given that people weighing at least 50 lb more than
I do ought to be able to ride the same bike, does that mean that mean I
have tolerance to load up my bike? That is, how important is distribution
of weight? Can bikes handle 165 lb of weight in the center significantly
more easily than 135 lbs on the saddle & 30 lb distributed elsewhere?
>That's if you want to stay upright. I suspect there are touring
>recumbents available - does anyone have experience with these?
I know somebody who swears by his recumbent for long-distance touring.
He recently did 240 miles in just under 23 hrs and says he never could
have done it on a regular bike (& he was a mileage junkie on his previous,
regular, bike, so that says a lot).
Sue
Radek Aster x211
> since I moved down here in '85. But I _have_ known people who rode
> recumbents, and I've always wondered what a long ride on one would be
> like. Recumbents do tend to be expensive, though.
Not any more expensive than a "good" touring bike. A "good" touring bike
will probably set you back about $1500-$2000, right there in the price
range of high end recumbents. I bought my Ryan for $1100, which includes
a fairing; granted it was second had though.
Eric Geoffrey Vann
ho...@seismo.gps.caltech.edu writes:
>I know somebody who swears by his recumbent for long-distance touring.
>He recently did 240 miles in just under 23 hrs and says he never could
>have done it on a regular bike (& he was a mileage junkie on his
previous,
>regular, bike, so that says a lot).
I'm relatively new to recumbents, so I cannot as yet speak to the
question of 240 mile rides, but I can certainly give witness to the fact
that distances under 100 miles and even grades that I find challenging on
an upright bike are much easier with a recumbent.
The trick is to find one which is designed primarily for touring (i.e.
Ryan Recumbent) and place good components on it (complete with a granny
ring). Then go out and have fun!
==================================================================
@ ___ "Recumbents are a way of life..."
_ \ _\ Eric Geoffrey Vann (708) 538-2888
(*)-^+-(*) Motorola, Inc. Schaumburg, IL 60173
==================================================================
Joshua Raiff
Exactly. I bought a "mountain bike" (really a city bike in mountain
bike style) that was cheap and nasty. It wasn't expensive and I wasn't
intending to ride it much...
Currently I have a mid-range hybrid bike that suits what I want to do
quite well. On the other hand, when I get the money I'll be buying a
road bike that I'll use as well as my hybrid.
I'm sort of hooked, although I'm getting damn sick of winter... :-(
Winter! That's the only (well almost) time I ride my MTB anymore as
opposed to my touring bike. Ride the junker untill the weather gets
better. If it starts dying, its a good time to learn how to maintain
a bike :-)
Ken Presting
>
>Not any more expensive than a "good" touring bike. A "good" touring bike
Balderdash. We just bought a Trek 520 for $650 on a closeout sale. The
Trek 520 is often described as a "classic" touring bike. It has all
Deore DX components (including brakes and cranks), and rides like a dream.
At the same sale, we got a Cannondale T700 for $800. Deore LX drivetrain,
RX100 cranks, Dia-Compe cranks, very nice frame. Both of these are *great*
bikes. And just try taking a recumbent on a fire road - an upright tourer
is set up almost like a mountain bike, and can go many of the same places.
While you're shopping, also check out the REI Novara Randonee', and the
Fuji Saratoga. Those are "good" bikes, too. $550-500 on sale.
Ken Presting "Hmph. Recumbent propaganda."
Doug Farrand
road riding, occasional racer, gear freak at heart. :) )
I took the old Miyata 610 (she's now on my old Bianchi racer) and slapped
on a pair of Tri-cross nobby tires, bar-end shifters, and a longer stem.
What a blast! I now have a well built and comfortable cyclo-cross/MTB.
It has cantilever brakes and strong 40 spoke wheels. I usually use it for
REAL trail riding on the rugged trails of Gatineau park. It hasn't failed
me yet.... I find it to be lighter than just about any trick Mtn bike, it
is really fast climbing and the smaller (27x1 3/8") tires seem better
suited to the mostly hardpack trails. It's also great fun to smoke the
Titanium Mtn boys on a "road bike" :)
Seriously, it has made me question why so many people believe they have to
have a MTB. This set up is very fast and comfortable on the road (great
for towing our burley) and the only time I have felt limited off road is
when we are really bombing extreme rocky downhills (shocks and bigger tire
volume would be nice then.) This kind of riding is likely done by VERY few
owners of MTBs.
By the way, I'm off for a weeklong tour of the Rockies next week...but I'm
taking my racing bike with 28 spoke wheels and leaving the tourer at home....
Go figure....
--
Doug Farrand, Auto-trol Technology, ae...@Freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Canada
Jon Bell
>Does the current state of the bicycle market actually discourage
>newcomers to cycling from attempting long recreational rides (say 30-40
>miles and up)?
The responses I've seen so far have been encouraging. It seems that a
lot of people have indeed started touring on MTBs and hybrids. Even
though those bikes are perhaps not ideally suited for long-distance
touring-type rides, they can be modified to make them more appropriate.
Also, we've seen some evidence of people getting "hooked" enough to
get a "real" touring bike.
I was especially pleased to see that MTB/hybrid riders have been
showing up on organized touring rides (club rides and invitationals).
I was especially curious about this, because even though I have belonged
to large touring-oriented bike clubs (in Ann Arbor MI and Albany NY),
I moved down here just before MTBs and hybrids began to take over
the mass market for entry-level bikes, and the effects were not apparent
yet on club rides.
I do belong to a very small local bike club, but all the regular riders
have traditional road bikes (both touring- and performance-oriented),
since their involvement with cycling goes back to before the MTB boom.
Thanks for the responses and happy cycling (despite heat in the East
and floods in the Midwest)!
Radek Aster x211
> >Not any more expensive than a "good" touring bike. A "good" touring bike
> >will probably set you back about $1500-$2000, . . .
> Balderdash. We just bought a Trek 520 for $650 on a closeout sale. The
> ...
> At the same sale, we got a Cannondale T700 for $800. Deore LX drivetrain,
> ...
> While you're shopping, also check out the REI Novara Randonee', and the
> Fuji Saratoga. Those are "good" bikes, too. $550-500 on sale.
Again my posting has been taken out of context. What I said was that a
top-of-the-line recumbent (a Ryan Vanguard) will cost you $1400 new. However
not all recumbents are this expensive, although even a Ryan can be got
cheaper if you look around for 2nd hands.
There are numerous manufacturers to choose from and prices range from
around $300 all the way up to $2000. The choice is yours in what you want.
For example, an Infinity (all aluminium) can be had starting at about $400.
> Ken Presting "Hmph. Recumbent propaganda."
If anyone is interested I can get you a list of recumbent
manufacturers. I am constantly surprised by the level of intolerance
from seemingly intelligent bicyclists towards recumbents and their
riders, particularly from people who have never even tried them. Maybe
because one doesn't look like a "real" racer on a recumbent, and in a
biking culture where looks are becoming more important than the
quality of one's engine, I can see how recumbents might be offensive
to "poser" types.
I won't say that recumbents are superior to "regular" bikes for all
purposes, but I can say with certainty that after riding my Ryan I
would never tour on anything else.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ ___ Radek Aster email : ras...@isi.com
_ \ _\ fax : (408) 980-0400
(*)-^+-(*) ISI/SCG Technical Support tel : (408) 980-1500 x 211
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bob geer
>I took the old Miyata 610 (she's now on my old Bianchi racer) and slapped
>on a pair of Tri-cross nobby tires, bar-end shifters, and a longer stem.
>What a blast! I now have a well built and comfortable cyclo-cross/MTB.
>Seriously, it has made me question why so many people believe they have to
>have a MTB.
Mud, sand, weighing a reasonably fit 250 lbs. -- worth having
equipment that's a bit more substantial.
>By the way, I'm off for a weeklong tour of the Rockies next week...but I'm
>taking my racing bike with 28 spoke wheels and leaving the tourer at home....
>Go figure....
Are you touring or "wannabe racing"?
Enjoy the sights...
--
<> Bob `Bear' Geer <> bg...@beorn.sim.es.com (this *should* work) <>
<> cola-zombie <> speaking only for myself, one of my many tricks <>
<> Salt Lake City, <> "We must strive to be more than we are, Lal." <>
<> Ootah <> -- Cmdr. Data, learning schmaltz <>
Morris Bisted
>>will probably set you back about $1500-$2000, . . .
>
>Balderdash. We just bought a Trek 520 for $650 on a closeout sale. The
I suppose a closeout sale is representative of the expected price one would
expect to pay. Don't close out sales usually come from the merchant
trying to get rid of stock that didn't sell to some poor sucker who
wouldn't pay the full price.
>Trek 520 is often described as a "classic" touring bike. It has all
Classic, in terms of historically memorable, or in less politically
correct terms "out moded", "no longer useful", "antiquated." Yeah I'd want
to take my Dad's *classic* model T across the U.S, but I'd probably get
there faster on my recumbent.
>Deore DX components (including brakes and cranks), and rides like a dream.
>
>At the same sale, we got a Cannondale T700 for $800. Deore LX drivetrain,
>RX100 cranks, Dia-Compe cranks, very nice frame. Both of these are *great*
>bikes. And just try taking a recumbent on a fire road - an upright tourer
Great bikes (for "wedgie riders"(tm)) if you enjoy riding a
bike where the leather encased saddle is wedged between the cheeks
of your butt giving you that wonderful pain in your backside, and
shoulders and neck, that no one on this group *ever* complains about.
>is set up almost like a mountain bike, and can go many of the same places.
>
>While you're shopping, also check out the REI Novara Randonee', and the
>Fuji Saratoga. Those are "good" bikes, too. $550-500 on sale.
After you get one these bikes you can join the rest of the "wedgie" riders
who can't seem to find their way from point "A" to point "B" without some
guy's lycra covered posterior 2 feet in front of their face and in case
they should get dropped there is always those day glow socks stuffed inside
those pointy italian shoes that they can site from.
Just for grins, perhaps those people that
have done a century on a recumbent and on a upright could give us the
benefit of their experience. My response is at the bottom of the page,
There are 2 articles, one from Eric House and my response. As the
articles indicate, we happened to be riding on foothill at the
same time.
>Ken Presting "Hmph. Recumbent propaganda."
Morris "There is no need for recumbent xenophobia" Bisted
###### old articles about recumbents #####################
From netcomsv!decwrl!olivea!apple.com!apple.com!not-for-mail Thu Jun 10 10:16:15 PDT 1993
Article: 2148 of rec.bicycles.rides
Xref: netcom.com rec.bicycles.rides:2148 rec.bicycles.misc:5301
Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!olivea!apple.com!apple.com!not-for-mail
From: eho...@apple.com (Eric House)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: recumbent diary, day 37
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.misc
Date: 9 Jun 1993 10:41:14 -0700
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, California
Lines: 74
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <1v57bq$q...@apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple.com
Keywords: recumbent
(That's 37 days since I started riding a borrowed Tour Easy. My hand
isn't broken any more, so that part's irrelevant. :-)
I'm starting to ride an upright again, and so I tend to go through
swings in opinion on which is better for what. For instance, on Monday
I rode said upright up Highway 9 (a 7-mile, 2300' foot climb) at an
average speed above 12, then went back and did it on the 'bent the next
day at closer to 8 mph. I drew the obvious conclusion, forgetting that
the first time I'd been fresh and doing it as a time trial to determine
how much climbing speed I'd lost to my injury. The second time I'd been
fried from the previous day, and was with a slower friend to boot. This
bike comparision stuff ain't no science.
Last night things went the opposite way. I was headed home on the 'bent
when I spotted a similar, low-slung vehicle in the bike lane ahead. So
I chased, and with some difficulty caught a SWB whose rider was sporting
tennis shoes and baggy shorts. "How's that thing on hills?" was his
greeting. Had I been quicker I'd have responded along the lines of "Don't
you worry that cars can't see you?" but we'd already shared the knowledge
that we were part of some special minority that's always getting asked the
same silly questions (silly only for their too-frequent repetition, but
silly just the same.)
We rode together along Foothill (wide, clean bike laned expressway) and
talked 'bents. Moe pointed out what I hadn't noticed for all my hurry
to get fast: you've got a better view of your surroundings from the
reclining position. He called it the "panorama." He also said it takes
a lot longer than I'd been told to develop full strength in the muscles
'bent riding depends on, and that the climbing speed would come.
A couple of upright riders we'd passed caught up at a light and asked
another FAQ. How many chains did you have to buy for a 'bent? I didn't
know, but Moe said it takes three. Then a couple of guys went zipping
by on aero bars. "Normally I wouldn't let that pass," says Moe, whose
disk rear wheel isn't just for show. I wouldn't either, so we jump as
best as 'bents can and give chase. We match their speed, but can't close
the gap until the next light.
Now we're part of a group of about 8 bikes that just cruise along from
light to light. Eventually Moe leaves the expressway, and then we reach
a long stretch without lights. The faster of the guys on aerobars and I
pull each other along ahead of the rest, and after I've taken one too-long
pull Mr. Tri complements me on the size of the draft coming off the back
of my bike. He gets a bit ahead, and I struggle not to lose ground, but
on the final stretch of road, a bit of a rise, I surge ahead before making
my turn. From the last look I got of him, he was pretty fried too.
All of this is leading me to a number of conclusions. First, I don't
think I've given myself a fair chance to develop full speed on the 'bent.
What speed I have on an upright I developed first by commuting along this
same road and chasing anything faster than I was, and then by riding with
racers on occasion to remind myself of how fast I should be going. This
second aspect of training has been missing from my recumbent experience.
If I had more encounters like yesterday's my speed would start to climb.
Second, 'bent riders have a subculture quite different from whatever
you'd call the collective experience of upright racers and wannabes I tend
to associate with. From what little I've seen I'd say it's worth
experiencing. That is, the few rides I've done with 'bent riders have been
fun just for the social aspect alone. I'm not saying one is better, but
that as with most things broadening one's horizons is great. Certainly
the meeting new people aspect of my 'bent experience has been great (just
don't ask if it was worth a broken hand :-).
One final thing: if anyone has been reading this series hoping to get the
final word on whether 'bents or uprights are better, I'm afraid I'm going
to wind up disappointing you. I'd reach a conclusion if I could, but I
don't think that's going to be possible. I'm not going to be buying a
'bent anytime soon, but that's because of storage and money issues rather
than for lack of desire. I'd certainly get one before I'd get an ATB.
--
****************************************************************************
Eric House "My employer doesn't share its opinions with
RAAM in '93! me, so I can share only mine with you"
From moe Fri Jun 11 19:41:11 PDT 1993
Article: 5362 of rec.bicycles.misc
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Path: netcom.com!moe
From: m...@netcom.com (Morris Bisted)
Subject: Re: recumbent diary, day 37
Message-ID: <moeC8F...@netcom.com>
Keywords: recumbent
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <1v57bq$q...@apple.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 19:15:05 GMT
In article <1v57bq$q...@apple.com> eho...@apple.com (Eric House) writes:
>(That's 37 days since I started riding a borrowed Tour Easy. My hand
>
>We rode together along Foothill (wide, clean bike laned expressway) and
>talked 'bents. Moe pointed out what I hadn't noticed for all my hurry
>to get fast: you've got a better view of your surroundings from the
>reclining position. He called it the "panorama." He also said it takes
I've now ridden for 3 years on a recumbent, and had about 6 or 7 hard
core years on a non-recumbent. The panorama is one of the biggest
benefits. I look straight out on the road, not down over a wheel and
thus I get the view of the entire country side, and I can do that
in a (42 -> 14) or (42 -> 13) for hours (You don't have to worry
about torquing the chain when it is 3 times as long as normal).
While riding uprights, I'd draft with a bunch of friends do 50-60
miles in ~3 hours and have no idea what I'd seen because I was always
concerned about pulling hard when I was at the front or staying in
the envelope when at the back (I knew a lot about the wheel on the guy
I was following though.)I can get those kind of speeds or
darn close to it on my recumbent and enjoy the surroundings. It
was a big win for me.
I ride a "short wheel" base which means that
my front chain ring is out in front of my front wheel(which is at
about my knees), most people don't take kindly to my peddles
in their rotation, being on both sides of their rear wheel. It
leaves one with images of the chariot scene in Ben Hur, so I don't
take a lot of the drafting opportunities I have.
You have to ride differently on a recumbent, it only takes a few
times being stuck at a stop light before your remember always
shift down. i.e. on a recumbent you don't push off with your
foot, shift your weight to the high pedal and step down to get going.
You lift up your foot and press the pedal, there is no forward motion except
for that coming from the pedals. .
There is also no "bunny hopping" of cattle gaurds and train tracks. I
could hop a cattle gaurd or track at speed and never lose any speed, on
a recumbent you have to slow down.
>a lot longer than I'd been told to develop full strength in the muscles
>'bent riding depends on, and that the climbing speed would come.
>
>A couple of upright riders we'd passed caught up at a light and asked
>another FAQ. How many chains did you have to buy for a 'bent? I didn't
>know, but Moe said it takes three. Then a couple of guys went zipping
>by on aero bars. "Normally I wouldn't let that pass," says Moe, whose
>disk rear wheel isn't just for show. I wouldn't either, so we jump as
>best as 'bents can and give chase. We match their speed, but can't close
Eric, did a lot better job than I did at jumping, for me It was a
high rolling resistance day. Most of the time, I have no problem "jumping"
out, I can usually catch/pass a person or a pack if I want/need to.
Once I got used to my recumbent, I had no problems with sprints.
As far as hills, I like it. I push against the pedals, which push
be back into a seat, the seat acts like a wall and
therefore I get a lot more push per rotation. My friend who did
the Sequoia century (100 miles) got his recumbent about 6 months
ago ( rode across america, and canada on a standard) pushed up highway 9 and
never had any of the uprights he was passing ask him how his
Ryan "did on hills". That has been my experience too. You
can't get out of the saddle, but it hasn't been a problem for
me. I'd say once you get your "recumbent legs" (for the people that
I talk with, it's about 3 to 6 months), it's probably a
"wash" on relative speed up hills.
>
>Second, 'bent riders have a subculture quite different from whatever
>you'd call the collective experience of upright racers and wannabes I tend
>to associate with. From what little I've seen I'd say it's worth
>experiencing. That is, the few rides I've done with 'bent riders have been
>fun just for the social aspect alone. I'm not saying one is better, but
One advantage that often is overlooked until you get back on
a standard, is that I don't have to get my backside in shape
for those long rides. My seat is just like sitting in desk
chair. I ride 4 or 5 hours get off the seat, and I walk normally,
I don't have any of that ache that comes from spending 4 hours
on a standard saddle that I used to have.
FYI not all recumbents are the same. There are short and long
wheel bases and they ride significantly different as I'm sure you
can imagine. The short wheel base is much quicker/squirrely and
maneuverable. Long wheel bases give you a more stable feel, but they
also tend to be heavier than the short wheel base.
Obviously these are generalizations so your mileage may vary.
I just purchased my second recumbent after researching for about
6 months, I finally settled on one built by guy in Santa Rosa
(Dave Holuzek), that met about 95% of my requirements. I rode about
16 of the different recumbants offered on the commercial market,
all had different advantages to offer potential users.
Morris (m...@netcom.com)
Radek Aster x211
> Just for grins, perhaps those people that have done a century on a
> recumbent and on a upright could give us the benefit of their
> experience. My response is at the bottom of the page, There are 2
> articles, one from Eric House and my response. As the articles
> indicate, we happened to be riding on foothill at the same time.
I have ridden several centuries on a recumbent, that I had in previous
years ridden on an upright bike. Locally (in the Bay Area) these have
included the "Steinbeck and the Sequoia Centuries". I can honestly say
that on future centuries I would ride my recumbent again.
The one obvious difference is that at the same point in the century,
where I would feel fatigued riding an upright, I don't feel nearly as
tired while riding a recumbent. I don't have a handle on the
physiological meaning of the "more efficient pedalling position"
afforded by a recumbent, but I can guarantee it's effects.
I find, after a 6 month training period, I can climb just as fast on
my recumbent as my upright. Granted, it took me that long to develop
and condition those muscles I use while riding a 'bent which I don't
use while riding an upright. Novice 'bent riders, who may be seasoned
upright riders, don't give their muscles a chance to develop and
attribute their inability to climb on a recumbent to the bike, rather
than their lack of conditioning.
The only disadvantage in riding a long-wheel-base bent in a century is
that if you need to transport the bike to and from the start, you may
have to carefully consider your options. You may have a hard time on
BART, and a "regular" car rack will probably not accomodate a
long-wheel-base bent.
#ifdef OWN_BELIEFS
But then again one could choose to ride to the start point.
#endif
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ ___ Radek Aster email : ras...@isi.com
_ \ _\ fax : (408) 980-0400
(*)-^+-(*) ISI/SCG Technical Support tel : (408) 980-1500 x 211
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art LaValle
English friend of mine originally had built as his CycloCross bike and he
sold to me some years later, and I in turn sold again to another friend when
I lost interest in touring. It had a nice long top tube, a long wheelbase, a
rugged Reynolds frame, barend shifters, heavy duty wheels, cantilever brakes,
and eyelets on the front and rear dropouts. It served me well as a fully
loaded tourer on a number of trips here and abroad and is still going strong.
At that time (early mid 70's) this type of Bike (CycloCross) was the equival-
ent of the modern day Off Road Bike (I realize that the two types of bikes
co-exist now) and it was also "perfect" as a loaded touring bike.
It's inherent ruggedness and long wheelbase made for a comfortable and stable
ride when fully loaded with all sorts of packs and stuff.
If I were to shop for a "perfect" tourer today (in the U.S) I'd start by
looking at Mountain Bikes. With the simple addition of a comfortable set of
handlebar ends and a pair of smooth rolling 26 inch clinchers I'd have a
bike with all the attributes of my "perfect" Bob Jackson tourer of the
70's...
Ken Presting
>
>> >Not any more expensive than a "good" touring bike. A "good" touring bike
>> >will probably set you back about $1500-$2000, . . .
>
>> . . .
>
> . . .. I am constantly surprised by the level of intolerance
>from seemingly intelligent bicyclists . . .
^^^^^^^^^
Hmph!
> . . . towards recumbents and their
>riders, particularly from people who have never even tried them. Maybe
>because one doesn't look like a "real" racer on a recumbent, and in a
>biking culture where looks are becoming more important than the
>quality of one's engine, I can see how recumbents might be offensive
>to "poser" types.
^^^^^
Hmph!
>I won't say that recumbents are superior to "regular" bikes for all
>purposes, but I can say with certainty that after riding my Ryan I
>would never tour on anything else.
Ahhh!
Ken Presting "All's well that ends on a bike"
Radek Aster x211
> Hmph!
> Hmph!
> Ahhh!
Tsk tsk tsk .... reduced to hoots, grunts and whistles.
"wedgie riders (tm - m...@netcom.com)" - I like it. How you like the feel
of that lycra up against your nose. :-)