Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warning - actual cycling content
90 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr Zoidberg
May 11, 2013, 2:57:11 PM5/11/13
to
I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my Trek
hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they were
called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker or
easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences were
quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me in a
week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle to Work
voucher.
Secondly, having done lots of 20 mile rides recently I thought it was time
to push myself a little harder and did 29 this morning with a trip to
Worcester and back. As you might have noticed it was more than a little
windy today which wasn't fun on the out let but at least I had it to my back
for the return. I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed, and
I'm looking forward to seeing how the whizzy new bike compares.
--
Alex
hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they were
called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker or
easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences were
quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me in a
week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle to Work
voucher.
Secondly, having done lots of 20 mile rides recently I thought it was time
to push myself a little harder and did 29 this morning with a trip to
Worcester and back. As you might have noticed it was more than a little
windy today which wasn't fun on the out let but at least I had it to my back
for the return. I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed, and
I'm looking forward to seeing how the whizzy new bike compares.
--
Alex
Clive George
May 11, 2013, 3:11:01 PM5/11/13
to
On 11/05/2013 19:57, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my
> Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they
> were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker
> or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences
> were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me
> in a week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle
> to Work voucher.
Woo hoo! Release that inner MAMIL :-)
> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my
> Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they
> were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker
> or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences
> were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me
> in a week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle
> to Work voucher.
(I was wondering at one point one becomes a MAMIL. I've been a MIL since
I was a teenager, so is it simply an age thing?)
> Secondly, having done lots of 20 mile rides recently I thought it was
> time to push myself a little harder and did 29 this morning with a trip
> to Worcester and back. As you might have noticed it was more than a
> little windy today which wasn't fun on the out let but at least I had it
> to my back for the return. I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I
> managed, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the whizzy new bike
> compares.
there at all...
Paul Luton
May 11, 2013, 3:20:09 PM5/11/13
to
On 11/05/2013 19:57, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
means cyclist who will look worried about that nice little cut-through
along a track to avoid a traffic infested main road.
Emil on a trusty tourer.
Owen Dunn
May 11, 2013, 4:35:44 PM5/11/13
to
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to
> my Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when
> they were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much
> quicker or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the
> differences were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which
> should be with me in a week or two once the finance department at work
> pay for the Cycle to Work voucher.
I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to
> my Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when
> they were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much
> quicker or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the
> differences were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which
> should be with me in a week or two once the finance department at work
> pay for the Cycle to Work voucher.
they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
In the unlikely event I found myself racing (but if that happens I'll
eat my hat) I would go for a shiny `road bike', but they're just too
far from a medium point to make them a bike you can use for almost
anything. Or at least that I could use for almost anything without
seriously changing my lifestyle to accommodate the bike, which seems
the wrong way around.
I suspect my current bike purchasing quest is turning into an attempt
to work out where the happy point is between zoominess and
practicality. But the impractical things are sooo shiny...
(S)
[*] Having got that set of whinges off my chest I find that the Trek
1.2 does actually have mudguard and rack capability so I'm being
unfair in this specific case :-)
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 11, 2013, 5:08:37 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:44 +0100, Owen Dunn
<ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
Yep. They're beautiful (I was leering at a very sleek Specialized
<ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
earlier today, but not the MAMIL rider!), expensive, and
uncomfortable. If I buy a new road bike, it'll be another Dawes Galaxy
class machine like my current one, which is fast approaching 20 years
old and giving me no trouble at all.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see
the ones which open for us. - Alexander Graham Bell
soup
May 11, 2013, 5:21:48 PM5/11/13
to
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
Zebee Johnstone
May 11, 2013, 6:27:14 PM5/11/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 22:08:37 +0100
Long distance comfort and a reasonable turn of speed.
My Bacchetta Giro is a bit on the heavy side being a commuter/tourer
and carrying the odd kitchen sink but there are lighter ones. Even
the fancy Corsa can fit mudguards and a seat bag that takes a fair
chunk of stuff.
I think 'bent because mine has been neglected lately.
My work commute is now Brompton and train which fits better into my
timing and situation than the long commute on the 'bent did.
But I have taken it out for a general jaunt on the last couple of
weekends and it really is such a lovely thing to ride. Fast and
comfortable and I don't want to stop.
The Brom gave me a new appreciation of wedgies, but If I could only
have one I suspect the 'bent would get the nod.
http://www.thebikedoctor.net/recumbentexperience.html is an
experienced road bike rider's encounter
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:44 +0100, Owen Dunn
><ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
> Yep. They're beautiful (I was leering at a very sleek Specialized
> earlier today, but not the MAMIL rider!), expensive, and
> uncomfortable. If I buy a new road bike, it'll be another Dawes Galaxy
> class machine like my current one, which is fast approaching 20 years
> old and giving me no trouble at all.
Or you could buy a 2 wheel recumbent in a sporting configuration.
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:44 +0100, Owen Dunn
><ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
> Yep. They're beautiful (I was leering at a very sleek Specialized
> earlier today, but not the MAMIL rider!), expensive, and
> uncomfortable. If I buy a new road bike, it'll be another Dawes Galaxy
> class machine like my current one, which is fast approaching 20 years
> old and giving me no trouble at all.
Long distance comfort and a reasonable turn of speed.
My Bacchetta Giro is a bit on the heavy side being a commuter/tourer
and carrying the odd kitchen sink but there are lighter ones. Even
the fancy Corsa can fit mudguards and a seat bag that takes a fair
chunk of stuff.
I think 'bent because mine has been neglected lately.
My work commute is now Brompton and train which fits better into my
timing and situation than the long commute on the 'bent did.
But I have taken it out for a general jaunt on the last couple of
weekends and it really is such a lovely thing to ride. Fast and
comfortable and I don't want to stop.
The Brom gave me a new appreciation of wedgies, but If I could only
have one I suspect the 'bent would get the nod.
http://www.thebikedoctor.net/recumbentexperience.html is an
experienced road bike rider's encounter
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 11, 2013, 7:53:11 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:27:14 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 22:08:37 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:44 +0100, Owen Dunn
>><ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>>>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>>>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>>>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>>>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>>>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>>
>> Yep. They're beautiful (I was leering at a very sleek Specialized
>> earlier today, but not the MAMIL rider!), expensive, and
>> uncomfortable. If I buy a new road bike, it'll be another Dawes Galaxy
>> class machine like my current one, which is fast approaching 20 years
>> old and giving me no trouble at all.
>
>Or you could buy a 2 wheel recumbent in a sporting configuration.
>Long distance comfort and a reasonable turn of speed.
Oh, yeah - I've wanted one for years, after trying a friend's. I was
thinking more of replacement for the Galaxy if/when it falls apart,
while a 'bent would be an additional steed.
>My work commute is now Brompton and train which fits better into my
>timing and situation than the long commute on the 'bent did.
I'll be in a new job quite soon, waiting to find out what the commute
will be (location is not yet fixed). I may be going foldup bike+train
too.
>The Brom gave me a new appreciation of wedgies
... is that a language clash, or is the saddle *really* uncomfortable?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
wrote:
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 22:08:37 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:44 +0100, Owen Dunn
>><ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>>>they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>>>Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>>>there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>>>clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>>>rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>>
>> Yep. They're beautiful (I was leering at a very sleek Specialized
>> earlier today, but not the MAMIL rider!), expensive, and
>> uncomfortable. If I buy a new road bike, it'll be another Dawes Galaxy
>> class machine like my current one, which is fast approaching 20 years
>> old and giving me no trouble at all.
>
>Or you could buy a 2 wheel recumbent in a sporting configuration.
>Long distance comfort and a reasonable turn of speed.
thinking more of replacement for the Galaxy if/when it falls apart,
while a 'bent would be an additional steed.
>My work commute is now Brompton and train which fits better into my
>timing and situation than the long commute on the 'bent did.
will be (location is not yet fixed). I may be going foldup bike+train
too.
>The Brom gave me a new appreciation of wedgies
Cheers - Jaimie
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Zebee Johnstone
May 11, 2013, 10:04:07 PM5/11/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 00:53:11 +0100
Heh, language clash, "wedgie" being bent rider slang for an diamond
frame bike.
Oddly the Brom was the first upright I've ridden in ages which was
comfortable stock. I was quite surprised I was expecting to hate the
saddle but I did not.
Then I decided to try Brooks because world+dog was going on about how
wonderful they were and was that a mistake!
After a lot of faffing about and getting an adapter I was able to
make the B17S vaguely comfortable, and after more faffing about and
some uncomfortable journeys I could do without the adapter so
bringing the saddle a bit closer to the bars.
Then I lucked into a B67S which is a lot wider and more comfortable
and I'm happy now. Don't really need the springs, the Brom's
suspension works quite well, but the wider saddle is most definitely
better for me. The original Brom saddle is padded and has a much
wider range of adjustment. I think the B67S is better than the
original which is better than the B17S. I expect this is to do with
me being short and the Brom's very unadjustable riding position.
THe Brom is reasonably comfortable now. For a wedgie.
I wouldn't want to do long trips on it if the 'bent was available
though. In fact I wouldn't want to do long trips on it. As a
commuter yes, as a tourer I'd prefer the motorcycle if I didn't have a
'bent.
Zebee
frame bike.
Oddly the Brom was the first upright I've ridden in ages which was
comfortable stock. I was quite surprised I was expecting to hate the
saddle but I did not.
Then I decided to try Brooks because world+dog was going on about how
wonderful they were and was that a mistake!
After a lot of faffing about and getting an adapter I was able to
make the B17S vaguely comfortable, and after more faffing about and
some uncomfortable journeys I could do without the adapter so
bringing the saddle a bit closer to the bars.
Then I lucked into a B67S which is a lot wider and more comfortable
and I'm happy now. Don't really need the springs, the Brom's
suspension works quite well, but the wider saddle is most definitely
better for me. The original Brom saddle is padded and has a much
wider range of adjustment. I think the B67S is better than the
original which is better than the B17S. I expect this is to do with
me being short and the Brom's very unadjustable riding position.
THe Brom is reasonably comfortable now. For a wedgie.
I wouldn't want to do long trips on it if the 'bent was available
though. In fact I wouldn't want to do long trips on it. As a
commuter yes, as a tourer I'd prefer the motorcycle if I didn't have a
'bent.
Zebee
Alistair Gunn
May 12, 2013, 11:36:02 AM5/12/13
to
Owen Dunn twisted the electrons to say:
for a rear rack. (To which one can also add either SKS Race Blades or
Crud Roadracers.) It's not until you get into the >�1k carbon creations
where this stop being true.
> I suspect my current bike purchasing quest is turning into an attempt
> to work out where the happy point is between zoominess and
> practicality. But the impractical things are sooo shiny...
Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
In my experience, most of the cheaper road bikes do have at least mounts
> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
for a rear rack. (To which one can also add either SKS Race Blades or
Crud Roadracers.) It's not until you get into the >�1k carbon creations
where this stop being true.
> I suspect my current bike purchasing quest is turning into an attempt
> to work out where the happy point is between zoominess and
> practicality. But the impractical things are sooo shiny...
head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Alistair Gunn
May 12, 2013, 11:41:23 AM5/12/13
to
Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
(legs and hill permitting) kept there for quite some time without undue
effort. But the Corsa (Corsa 24 to be exact) was the closest I've come
to the instant acceleration of a road bike on a recumbent.
> I think 'bent because mine has been neglected lately.
I'm kind of wishing I'd not got rid of my last one, even though I'd come
to the conclusion it wasn't the one I really wanted.
> My Bacchetta Giro is a bit on the heavy side being a commuter/tourer
> and carrying the odd kitchen sink but there are lighter ones. Even
> the fancy Corsa can fit mudguards and a seat bag that takes a fair
> chunk of stuff.
The Giro 20 & 26 could be wound up to semi-serious turn of speed, and
> and carrying the odd kitchen sink but there are lighter ones. Even
> the fancy Corsa can fit mudguards and a seat bag that takes a fair
> chunk of stuff.
(legs and hill permitting) kept there for quite some time without undue
effort. But the Corsa (Corsa 24 to be exact) was the closest I've come
to the instant acceleration of a road bike on a recumbent.
> I think 'bent because mine has been neglected lately.
to the conclusion it wasn't the one I really wanted.
Dr Zoidberg
May 12, 2013, 1:51:07 PM5/12/13
to
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:re2dnSGTpK0oChPM...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 11/05/2013 19:57, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my
>> Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they
>> were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker
>> or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences
>> were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me
>> in a week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle
>> to Work voucher.
>
> Woo hoo! Release that inner MAMIL :-)
>
> (I was wondering at one point one becomes a MAMIL. I've been a MIL since I
> was a teenager, so is it simply an age thing?)
I assume so.
>> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my
>> Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they
>> were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker
>> or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences
>> were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me
>> in a week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle
>> to Work voucher.
>
> Woo hoo! Release that inner MAMIL :-)
>
> (I was wondering at one point one becomes a MAMIL. I've been a MIL since I
> was a teenager, so is it simply an age thing?)
I started cycling when it became apparent that running to the staff canteen
to grab a free cake didn't expend more calories than the cake provided, and
I needed to do some more exercise before I turned into a middle aged blob.
That was with a couple of years to go until the significant birthday, and
I'm now 6 months away.
--
Alex
Dr Zoidberg
May 12, 2013, 1:57:24 PM5/12/13
to
"Owen Dunn" <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8361ypn...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to
>> my Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when
>> they were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much
>> quicker or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the
>> differences were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which
>> should be with me in a week or two once the finance department at work
>> pay for the Cycle to Work voucher.
>
> I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
For me, biking is very much a leisure and exercise pursuit, so I can be
>
>> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to
>> my Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when
>> they were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much
>> quicker or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the
>> differences were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which
>> should be with me in a week or two once the finance department at work
>> pay for the Cycle to Work voucher.
>
> I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
selective about where and when I ride.
The road bike will be very much for pleasant [1] evening and weekend use, so
won't need any more luggage than I can fit in my pockets, and will probably
stay at home if it's wet.
The hybrid will stay around for winter and rougher use, and that has one
mudguard at least :0)
[1] weather, at least. The exercise may be less than pleasant.
--
Alex
soup
May 12, 2013, 2:47:45 PM5/12/13
to
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> That was with a couple of years to go until the significant birthday,
> and I'm now 6 months away.
Pah! Youngster. ;o)
> That was with a couple of years to go until the significant birthday,
> and I'm now 6 months away.
Dr Zoidberg
May 12, 2013, 3:04:16 PM5/12/13
to
"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmom88$s2r$1...@dont-email.me...
--
Alex
Dr Zoidberg
May 12, 2013, 3:04:46 PM5/12/13
to
news:kmmaqm$uk$1...@dont-email.me...
Any combination of the above will do.
--
Alex
--
Alex
soup
May 13, 2013, 3:25:06 AM5/13/13
to
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "soup" wrote .
(over about 16~17 miles).
> "soup" wrote .
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
> Any combination of the above will do.
I'm just jealous 'cause my best average (term?) is high 11s~12 mph
>>> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
> Any combination of the above will do.
(over about 16~17 miles).
Owen Dunn
May 13, 2013, 4:05:52 AM5/13/13
to
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Owen Dunn twisted the electrons to say:
>> I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
> In my experience, most of the cheaper road bikes do have at least mounts
> for a rear rack. (To which one can also add either SKS Race Blades or
> Crud Roadracers.) It's not until you get into the >�1k carbon creations
> where this stop being true.
Perhaps none of the road bikes I've seen in shops have been the
> Owen Dunn twisted the electrons to say:
>> I've not tried a road bike but they do all look so sleek and shiny and
>> they're the majority of what bike shops seem to be selling these days.
>> Part of me wants to drool all over them. But then on most of them
>> there are no mudguards so if it's wet you have to have a change of
>> clothes at the other end, and there are no mountings for a pannier
>> rack so you can't take any stuff with you, and, and... [*]
>
> In my experience, most of the cheaper road bikes do have at least mounts
> for a rear rack. (To which one can also add either SKS Race Blades or
> Crud Roadracers.) It's not until you get into the >�1k carbon creations
> where this stop being true.
cheaper ones, then, although most of them weren't carbon.
>> I suspect my current bike purchasing quest is turning into an attempt
>> to work out where the happy point is between zoominess and
>> practicality. But the impractical things are sooo shiny...
>
> Recumbent?
> Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things head
> uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs
> IME, but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
(S)
Zebee Johnstone
May 13, 2013, 4:43:11 AM5/13/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
Zebee
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>
> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
Zebee
Alan Braggins
May 13, 2013, 4:46:02 AM5/13/13
to
In article <slrnkotu46...@gmail.com>, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>Then I decided to try Brooks because world+dog was going on about how
>wonderful they were and was that a mistake!
General opinion seems to be that if a Brooks suits your bum it will be
>
>Then I decided to try Brooks because world+dog was going on about how
>wonderful they were and was that a mistake!
okay when new and great when worn in, and if it doesn't suit your bum
it will be uncomfortable forever.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 5:10:19 AM5/13/13
to
In article <slrnkp19e...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Unfortunately, you can also change so that a Brooks saddle no
longer is comfortable. Not usually a problem for those under
50 or with large amounts of adipose tissue.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
longer is comfortable. Not usually a problem for those under
50 or with large amounts of adipose tissue.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 5:22:38 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)
wrote:
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)
Zebee Johnstone
May 13, 2013, 5:50:33 AM5/13/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>
>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>
> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>
>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>
> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 5:53:06 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:50:33 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
subject to?
Cheers - Jaimie (researching)
--
I like my coffee how I like my women... frothing.
wrote:
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>>
>>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>
>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>
>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
*wince*. But surely recumbent riders can safely use normal underwear
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>>
>>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>
>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>
>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
subject to?
Cheers - Jaimie (researching)
--
I like my coffee how I like my women... frothing.
Zebee Johnstone
May 13, 2013, 6:11:24 AM5/13/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:53:06 +0100
After all, the middle aged male is rather prone to wearing their
favourite underwear until well past the point of no return.
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:50:33 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>>>
>>>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>>
>>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>>
>>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>
> *wince*. But surely recumbent riders can safely use normal underwear
> without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
> subject to?
>
Oh yes, but there have been Incidents.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:50:33 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:02 +0100
>>>>Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Recumbent? Generally a high degree of zoominess (at least until things
>>>>> head uphill for a protracted period), and may score well on practicality
>>>>> depending upon the judge! Not so good on getting carried upstairs IME,
>>>>> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
>>>>
>>>>Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>>is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>>
>>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>>
>>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>
> *wince*. But surely recumbent riders can safely use normal underwear
> without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
> subject to?
>
After all, the middle aged male is rather prone to wearing their
favourite underwear until well past the point of no return.
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 6:23:29 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:11:24 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Politicians are not born, they are excreted
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
wrote:
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:53:06 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:50:33 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>>> is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>>>
>>>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>>
>> *wince*. But surely recumbent riders can safely use normal underwear
>> without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
>> subject to?
>
>Oh yes, but there have been Incidents.
>
>After all, the middle aged male is rather prone to wearing their
>favourite underwear until well past the point of no return.
Ew. Point taken.
>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:53:06 +0100
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:50:33 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 10:22:38 +0100
>>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:11 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has to have its own specialised clothing in that the recumbent rider
>>>>> is well advised not to wear loose shorts.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh my God - it's full of bees!"?
>>>
>>>There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>>
>> *wince*. But surely recumbent riders can safely use normal underwear
>> without any of the potential for damage that vertical riders are
>> subject to?
>
>Oh yes, but there have been Incidents.
>
>After all, the middle aged male is rather prone to wearing their
>favourite underwear until well past the point of no return.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Politicians are not born, they are excreted
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
soup
May 13, 2013, 7:13:59 AM5/13/13
to
Alistair Gunn wrote:
> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
I have specific but not specialised clothing. Boot trainery things
> but less need for specialised clothing for long journies ...
(only laced up as shoes though that way I can take the ends of the laces
behind the tongue and loop them through the speed lacing hooks opposite ),
an old pair of combat trousers(complete with braces), and one of the
boys old over the head jacket things. Come summer I will be in trainers
shorts and T-shirt. I also wear around my neck(at all times) a buff, a
baseball hat (Dull Men's Club)and eye protector/sunglasses (depending
on which lenses I have in) things.
Mike Causer
May 13, 2013, 7:14:15 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:05:52 +0100
Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> What specialised clothing?
Rubber Knickers -- according to the current Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government.
Mike
Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> What specialised clothing?
Rubber Knickers -- according to the current Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government.
Mike
Dr Zoidberg
May 13, 2013, 7:53:12 AM5/13/13
to
news:kmq17g$4uq$1...@dont-email.me...
My target is always 15mph, which I've done on rides with hills up to 20
miles long.
On a bad day when either me or the bike isn't at it's best it can drop to
13, with about 14.3 being most common.
I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
to see what difference the bike makes.
--
Alex
miles long.
On a bad day when either me or the bike isn't at it's best it can drop to
13, with about 14.3 being most common.
I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
to see what difference the bike makes.
--
Alex
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 8:05:11 AM5/13/13
to
In article <kmqjvo$ut1$1...@dont-email.me>,
>On a bad day when either me or the bike isn't at it's best it can drop to
>13, with about 14.3 being most common.
>
>I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
>to see what difference the bike makes.
I have always had strong legs, but can do NOTHING like that! The limit
for most people is aerobic capacity. I used to be able to do 15 MPH
for (say) 20 miles on the flat, no wind etc., but have dropped to below
6 MPH - all right, that was 60 miles and 3,500 feet of climbing :-)
I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
by cycling standards) hill.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:kmq17g$4uq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:kmq17g$4uq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>>> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
>>>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>>>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
>>> Any combination of the above will do.
>>
>> I'm just jealous 'cause my best average (term?) is high 11s~12 mph
>> (over about 16~17 miles).
>
>My target is always 15mph, which I've done on rides with hills up to 20
>miles long.
That's one serious hill :-)
>>>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>>>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
>>> Any combination of the above will do.
>>
>> I'm just jealous 'cause my best average (term?) is high 11s~12 mph
>> (over about 16~17 miles).
>
>My target is always 15mph, which I've done on rides with hills up to 20
>miles long.
>On a bad day when either me or the bike isn't at it's best it can drop to
>13, with about 14.3 being most common.
>
>I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
>to see what difference the bike makes.
for most people is aerobic capacity. I used to be able to do 15 MPH
for (say) 20 miles on the flat, no wind etc., but have dropped to below
6 MPH - all right, that was 60 miles and 3,500 feet of climbing :-)
I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
by cycling standards) hill.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
soup
May 13, 2013, 8:36:23 AM5/13/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>I need to be fully upright to maximise
> aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
> minimise knee problems.
I too like to be fully upright mainly because I look about as I go along
>I need to be fully upright to maximise
> aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
> minimise knee problems.
I find that the 'a�"$-in-the-air' attitude means I can see nothing. As
to cadence I am the exact opposite to you I like a very fast, almost
spinning, one, partially as it feels easier, and to me, it is kinder to
the knees. I use the 'legs extended but not locked out at the end of
each stroke' positioning
Phil Cook
May 13, 2013, 8:50:31 AM5/13/13
to
--
Phil Cook
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 8:57:16 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:05:11 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>by cycling standards) hill.
Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>by cycling standards) hill.
just impractical for whatever reason?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex."
-- Marvin the Martian
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 9:13:42 AM5/13/13
to
In article <3no1p89sqvvkk6bds...@4ax.com>,
wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance. I am very seriously
considering buying an ICE recumbent for my retirement, but Cambridge
is not an area that I would like to ride one around. That is why
it would have to be a folding one.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>>by cycling standards) hill.
>
>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>just impractical for whatever reason?
It has to be a tricycle - I can just (but only just) handle a long
>
>>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>>by cycling standards) hill.
>
>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>just impractical for whatever reason?
wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance. I am very seriously
considering buying an ICE recumbent for my retirement, but Cambridge
is not an area that I would like to ride one around. That is why
it would have to be a folding one.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 9:31:54 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:13:42 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>In article <3no1p89sqvvkk6bds...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>>>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>>>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>>>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>>>by cycling standards) hill.
>>
>>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>>just impractical for whatever reason?
>
>It has to be a tricycle - I can just (but only just) handle a long
>wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance.
*ligtbulb* Sorry, I remember that now. There was something niggling
>In article <3no1p89sqvvkk6bds...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I can't maintain more than 100 watts for long periods, and the bicycle
>>>makes a huge difference to me. I need to be fully upright to maximise
>>>aerobic capacity and stretch my legs each stroke at a low cadence to
>>>minimise knee problems. Very like walking up a steepish (very steep
>>>by cycling standards) hill.
>>
>>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>>just impractical for whatever reason?
>
>It has to be a tricycle - I can just (but only just) handle a long
>wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance.
when I was writing the message.
> I am very seriously
>considering buying an ICE recumbent for my retirement, but Cambridge
>is not an area that I would like to ride one around. That is why
>it would have to be a folding one.
bimbling up and down Hills Road over the years, they don't seem to be
any worse off for the extra width.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Whilst holidaying with the sprogs and watching Favourite Teddy Bear
trundling through the x-ray, I speculated on the fun that could be had
with a teddy bear containing a radio-opaque teddy-bear skeleton.
- K, asr
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 10:01:13 AM5/13/13
to
In article <pkq1p8lnp2orgc69v...@4ax.com>,
>> I am very seriously
>>considering buying an ICE recumbent for my retirement, but Cambridge
>>is not an area that I would like to ride one around. That is why
>>it would have to be a folding one.
>
>I've seen many trikes and a couple of recumbents three-wheelers
>bimbling up and down Hills Road over the years, they don't seem to be
>any worse off for the extra width.
Yes, but my commute is currently from opposite Scotsdales to the centre,
shortly to change from the former to West Cambridge. There used to be
some tricyclists and older riders, but the Trumpington Park and Ride
'improvements' was followed by both classes giving up. Given my
experiences, that might well be that they were intimidated into doing
so, essentially as I was. And a recumbent tricycle is VERY susceptible
to being run into accidentally on purpose.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>>>just impractical for whatever reason?
>>
>>It has to be a tricycle - I can just (but only just) handle a long
>>wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance.
>
>*ligtbulb* Sorry, I remember that now. There was something niggling
>when I was writing the message.
No problem.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you're a shoe-in for a 'Bent. Have you tried, or are they
>>>just impractical for whatever reason?
>>
>>It has to be a tricycle - I can just (but only just) handle a long
>>wheelbase recumbent, because of my balance.
>
>*ligtbulb* Sorry, I remember that now. There was something niggling
>when I was writing the message.
>> I am very seriously
>>considering buying an ICE recumbent for my retirement, but Cambridge
>>is not an area that I would like to ride one around. That is why
>>it would have to be a folding one.
>
>I've seen many trikes and a couple of recumbents three-wheelers
>bimbling up and down Hills Road over the years, they don't seem to be
>any worse off for the extra width.
shortly to change from the former to West Cambridge. There used to be
some tricyclists and older riders, but the Trumpington Park and Ride
'improvements' was followed by both classes giving up. Given my
experiences, that might well be that they were intimidated into doing
so, essentially as I was. And a recumbent tricycle is VERY susceptible
to being run into accidentally on purpose.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 10:12:15 AM5/13/13
to
familiar with the changes, that does suck.
I was talking to my mum about cycling around Cambridge (she lives
there still) and she's very much of the same mind as you, having been
nudged or worse by buses at least once a year.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
haiku are easy
all you do is stop at the
seventeenth syllab
Owen Dunn
May 13, 2013, 10:27:08 AM5/13/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk writes:
> Yes, but my commute is currently from opposite Scotsdales to the
> centre, shortly to change from the former to West Cambridge. There
> used to be some tricyclists and older riders, but the Trumpington
> Park and Ride 'improvements' was followed by both classes giving up.
> Given my experiences, that might well be that they were intimidated
> into doing so, essentially as I was. And a recumbent tricycle is
> VERY susceptible to being run into accidentally on purpose.
The ride from Trumpington to West Cambridge via Grantchester and Coton
> Yes, but my commute is currently from opposite Scotsdales to the
> centre, shortly to change from the former to West Cambridge. There
> used to be some tricyclists and older riders, but the Trumpington
> Park and Ride 'improvements' was followed by both classes giving up.
> Given my experiences, that might well be that they were intimidated
> into doing so, essentially as I was. And a recumbent tricycle is
> VERY susceptible to being run into accidentally on purpose.
is gorgeous should you find yourself able to use that route as a
commute.
(S)
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 10:38:26 AM5/13/13
to
In article <83ip2nl...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
I used to use that fairly regularly as my cycling route to West
Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
I may try it again, because the Addenbrookes Access Road may
have reduced that effect. There is one truly horrible location
for cyclists, which is coming down from Coton onto the Barton
Road roundabout, with the M11 traffic theoretically giving way
to your left.
I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
before it is any pleasure. One of my objectives is longish trips
in the less populated parts of the world (including the UK), so
I definitely would want an "off-road" capable vehicle. My current
traditional roadster has no trouble.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
I may try it again, because the Addenbrookes Access Road may
have reduced that effect. There is one truly horrible location
for cyclists, which is coming down from Coton onto the Barton
Road roundabout, with the M11 traffic theoretically giving way
to your left.
I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
before it is any pleasure. One of my objectives is longish trips
in the less populated parts of the world (including the UK), so
I definitely would want an "off-road" capable vehicle. My current
traditional roadster has no trouble.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
soup
May 13, 2013, 11:18:12 AM5/13/13
to
Phil Cook wrote:
> Stands well back and awaits les feux d'artifices.
Quels feux d'artifice seraient-ils ?
> Stands well back and awaits les feux d'artifices.
Phil Cook
May 13, 2013, 11:28:58 AM5/13/13
to
--
Phil Cook
Owen Dunn
May 13, 2013, 11:52:57 AM5/13/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk writes:
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>The ride from Trumpington to West Cambridge via Grantchester and Coton
>>is gorgeous should you find yourself able to use that route as a
>>commute.
>
> I used to use that fairly regularly as my cycling route to West
> Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
> 'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
I've only tried it a few times, at either lunchtime or 5:45pm and it's
been very quiet.
> I may try it again, because the Addenbrookes Access Road may have
> reduced that effect. There is one truly horrible location for
> cyclists, which is coming down from Coton onto the Barton Road
> roundabout, with the M11 traffic theoretically giving way to your
> left.
Yes, that's definitely the lowpoint of the ride!
> I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
> riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
> before it is any pleasure.
No pleasure because you've seen it all, because the ride is dull, or
something else entirely?
(S)
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>The ride from Trumpington to West Cambridge via Grantchester and Coton
>>is gorgeous should you find yourself able to use that route as a
>>commute.
>
> I used to use that fairly regularly as my cycling route to West
> Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
> 'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
been very quiet.
> I may try it again, because the Addenbrookes Access Road may have
> reduced that effect. There is one truly horrible location for
> cyclists, which is coming down from Coton onto the Barton Road
> roundabout, with the M11 traffic theoretically giving way to your
> left.
> I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
> riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
> before it is any pleasure.
something else entirely?
(S)
Dr Zoidberg
May 13, 2013, 11:54:22 AM5/13/13
to
<nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:kmqksn$nbj$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <kmqjvo$ut1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:kmq17g$4uq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
>>>>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>>>>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
>>>> Any combination of the above will do.
>>>
>>> I'm just jealous 'cause my best average (term?) is high 11s~12 mph
>>> (over about 16~17 miles).
>>
>>My target is always 15mph, which I've done on rides with hills up to 20
>>miles long.
>
> That's one serious hill :-)
Hehehe, I think you know what I meant.
> Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:kmq17g$4uq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>>> I'm pleased with the 14.5 mph average speed I managed,
>>>>> Do I go into I'm 50, 2 stone overweight and diabetic now or do I start
>>>>> complaining about this area being very hilly? ;o)
>>>> Any combination of the above will do.
>>>
>>> I'm just jealous 'cause my best average (term?) is high 11s~12 mph
>>> (over about 16~17 miles).
>>
>>My target is always 15mph, which I've done on rides with hills up to 20
>>miles long.
>
> That's one serious hill :-)
20 miles, *including* hills.
,
>>On a bad day when either me or the bike isn't at it's best it can drop to
>>13, with about 14.3 being most common.
>>
>>I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
>>to see what difference the bike makes.
>
> I have always had strong legs, but can do NOTHING like that! The limit
> for most people is aerobic capacity. I used to be able to do 15 MPH
> for (say) 20 miles on the flat, no wind etc., but have dropped to below
> 6 MPH - all right, that was 60 miles and 3,500 feet of climbing :-)
>
On the steepest hills I tackle I drop to 8mph, but try and keep above 10
>>13, with about 14.3 being most common.
>>
>>I've always had fairly strong legs though, which helps. I'll be interested
>>to see what difference the bike makes.
>
> I have always had strong legs, but can do NOTHING like that! The limit
> for most people is aerobic capacity. I used to be able to do 15 MPH
> for (say) 20 miles on the flat, no wind etc., but have dropped to below
> 6 MPH - all right, that was 60 miles and 3,500 feet of climbing :-)
>
unless it's very long or steep.
Bloody hard work, sometimes, but I just keep telling myself I'm doing it to
get fit, and that won't happen if I dawdle.
--
Alex
soup
May 13, 2013, 12:31:52 PM5/13/13
to
Phil Cook wrote:
> Those between a spinner and a masher... :-)
Ah but that would only apply if I thought spinning was the ONLY way to
> Those between a spinner and a masher... :-)
go. For me it's the best way, but others can do otherwise if they want.
I am not going to say they are wrong.
Alistair Gunn
May 13, 2013, 12:55:12 PM5/13/13
to
Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
rider! :-D Though I suppose they'll just complain that they wish they
hadn't? There's just no pleasing some people!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
Well at least they won't be able to claim they didn't see the recumbent
rider! :-D Though I suppose they'll just complain that they wish they
hadn't? There's just no pleasing some people!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 13, 2013, 12:55:51 PM5/13/13
to
In article <83ehdan...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
cyclist isn't riding right next to the hedge, so that they can
overtake dangerously. Not merely is that on a StageRoach route,
many Grantchester inhabitants are a pretty unpleasant bunch.
>> I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
>> riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
>> before it is any pleasure.
>
>No pleasure because you've seen it all, because the ride is dull, or
>something else entirely?
Dull, certainly, but it was more the aggression factor.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The ride from Trumpington to West Cambridge via Grantchester and Coton
>>>is gorgeous should you find yourself able to use that route as a
>>>commute.
>>
>> I used to use that fairly regularly as my cycling route to West
>> Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
>> 'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
>
>I've only tried it a few times, at either lunchtime or 5:45pm and it's
>been very quiet.
The problem is how many of the drivers will get aggressive if the
>>
>>>The ride from Trumpington to West Cambridge via Grantchester and Coton
>>>is gorgeous should you find yourself able to use that route as a
>>>commute.
>>
>> I used to use that fairly regularly as my cycling route to West
>> Cambridge, but the multiply damned Trumpington Park and Ride
>> 'improvements' vastly increased the amount of traffic on it.
>
>I've only tried it a few times, at either lunchtime or 5:45pm and it's
>been very quiet.
cyclist isn't riding right next to the hedge, so that they can
overtake dangerously. Not merely is that on a StageRoach route,
many Grantchester inhabitants are a pretty unpleasant bunch.
>> I forgot to mention that I am also interested in recreational
>> riding, and one needs to get a fair way away from where I live
>> before it is any pleasure.
>
>No pleasure because you've seen it all, because the ride is dull, or
>something else entirely?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Zebee Johnstone
May 13, 2013, 4:29:36 PM5/13/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 17:55:12 +0100
Zebee
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
>> There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>
> Well at least they won't be able to claim they didn't see the recumbent
> rider! :-D Though I suppose they'll just complain that they wish they
> hadn't? There's just no pleasing some people!
Target fixation?
> Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
>> There's also the matter of what is seen cannot be unseen.
>
> Well at least they won't be able to claim they didn't see the recumbent
> rider! :-D Though I suppose they'll just complain that they wish they
> hadn't? There's just no pleasing some people!
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
May 13, 2013, 4:38:26 PM5/13/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 13:36:23 +0100
I have short cranks on the 'bent and spin more on that than on the
Brom.
It's easier to do very low cadence pushing very hard a slow speed on
an upright because you can move the bike underneath you, on a 'bent
the bars move more and the plot is more unstable.
But at higher speeds I can get a hell of a lot of power into the
pedals on the 'bent because I can push against the seat.
I tend to hunch over on hills on the Brom, no idea why, it just seems
natural.
I think it's easier to put more power out on the bent for a longer
time but that's hard to measure. It's heavier than the Brom, I do
wonder what a light recumbent would be like. (Can't test one, they
are all too big for me.)
Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
Zebee
Brom.
It's easier to do very low cadence pushing very hard a slow speed on
an upright because you can move the bike underneath you, on a 'bent
the bars move more and the plot is more unstable.
But at higher speeds I can get a hell of a lot of power into the
pedals on the 'bent because I can push against the seat.
I tend to hunch over on hills on the Brom, no idea why, it just seems
natural.
I think it's easier to put more power out on the bent for a longer
time but that's hard to measure. It's heavier than the Brom, I do
wonder what a light recumbent would be like. (Can't test one, they
are all too big for me.)
Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
Zebee
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 5:47:26 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:38:26 +0100, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I tend to hunch over on hills on the Brom, no idea why, it just seems
>natural.
Likewise - I *think* it's knowing the back wheel's ground touching
point is a lot further forwrd than on a 26"+ wheeled bike, so on an
uphill you feel as if you should move your body forward more. But I'm
not sure.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Sent from my VAX 11/780
wrote:
>I tend to hunch over on hills on the Brom, no idea why, it just seems
>natural.
point is a lot further forwrd than on a 26"+ wheeled bike, so on an
uphill you feel as if you should move your body forward more. But I'm
not sure.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Sent from my VAX 11/780
soup
May 14, 2013, 3:24:33 AM5/14/13
to
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
I am in awe of numbers like that.
> pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 14, 2013, 4:41:32 AM5/14/13
to
In article <slrnkp2jon...@gmail.com>,
you would expect that he can put out less sustained power on a
recumbent than upright (which might or might not include a UCI
crouch). My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
than an educated guess.
That compares with my best estimate is that a road racer will be
faster than a traditional upright only for riders who can sustain
15+ MPH and can breathe effectively in a crouch. I have no idea
what proportion of people that last conditions covers, though it
is very unlikely to be less than 10% or more than 90%.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
>Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
>gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
>readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
>putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
>are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
>pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
Yes. Based on my investigations, you would expect that, just as
>
>Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
>Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
>gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
>readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
>putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
>are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
>pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
you would expect that he can put out less sustained power on a
recumbent than upright (which might or might not include a UCI
crouch). My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
than an educated guess.
That compares with my best estimate is that a road racer will be
faster than a traditional upright only for riders who can sustain
15+ MPH and can breathe effectively in a crouch. I have no idea
what proportion of people that last conditions covers, though it
is very unlikely to be less than 10% or more than 90%.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Dave Larrington
May 15, 2013, 3:36:20 AM5/15/13
to
On 13/05/2013 21:38, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
> Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
> gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
> readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
> putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
> are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
> pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
This ^^^^. The world's fastest self-propelled human person-type-thing
> Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
> Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
> gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
> readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
> putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
> are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
> pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
Sam Whittingham (who is excellent) has, IIRC, stated that on his track
bike he can - briefly - put out 2000W. In the Varna streamliner he can
only hit 1100W for a similar period. But the Varna will still go over
80 mph and not even Sir Chris is going to get a track bike within 30 mph
of *that* :-)
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
"Leverage" is *not* a verb.
Alan Braggins
May 15, 2013, 5:59:17 AM5/15/13
to
not much above 15mph, if that, but had a 20mph headwind this morning.)
(For what it's worth, when I tried Mike Causer's Speed Ross recumbent
(on a day without wind) I was a bit faster than on my upright, and would
expect to be a bit faster still if used to it.)
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 15, 2013, 6:20:22 AM5/15/13
to
In article <slrnkp6l6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
freezing, roasting, with a reasonable road surface, not too many
traffic lights or traffic conflicts, no gut rot, hangovers, or any
other special reasons to cause slow progress.
But that was for classifying riders. My remark about one being
faster than another was in actual use, with at least some hills
and/or places where you need to slow right down and speed up again
(like traffic lights and junctions).
>(For what it's worth, when I tried Mike Causer's Speed Ross recumbent
>(on a day without wind) I was a bit faster than on my upright, and would
>expect to be a bit faster still if used to it.)
I can't be bothered with trifling differences - they are important
only to top racers and sad sacks. Recumbents are marginally slower
uphill and when accelerating, so you need more than a bit faster
on the flat to be faster overall.
Anyway, those figures are only rules of thumb, and individual riders
will vary considerably.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
>>>Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
>>>gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
>>>readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
>>>putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
>>>are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
>>>pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
>>
>>Yes. Based on my investigations, you would expect that, just as
>>you would expect that he can put out less sustained power on a
>>recumbent than upright (which might or might not include a UCI
>>crouch). My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
>>only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
>>the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
>>than an educated guess.
>>
>>That compares with my best estimate is that a road racer will be
>>faster than a traditional upright only for riders who can sustain
>>15+ MPH and can breathe effectively in a crouch. I have no idea
>>what proportion of people that last conditions covers, though it
>>is very unlikely to be less than 10% or more than 90%.
>
>Ground speed or air speed? :-) (Speaking as someone who generally averages
>not much above 15mph, if that, but had a 20mph headwind this morning.)
On the flat etc. E.g. essentially no wind, not pissing down,
>>>
>>>Over on the Bacchetta forum there's a guy who goes by the name of Crit
>>>Rider who regularly participates in an unofficial criterium that often
>>>gets pro riders turning up for "training". He's compared wattage
>>>readings from PowerTap type kit and notes that on his recumbent he's
>>>putting out less power for a given speed than the road bike riders
>>>are. This is in a race where he's offhandedly talking about taking a
>>>pull at the front at 30mph or doing a breakaway at 33mph.
>>
>>Yes. Based on my investigations, you would expect that, just as
>>you would expect that he can put out less sustained power on a
>>recumbent than upright (which might or might not include a UCI
>>crouch). My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
>>only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
>>the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
>>than an educated guess.
>>
>>That compares with my best estimate is that a road racer will be
>>faster than a traditional upright only for riders who can sustain
>>15+ MPH and can breathe effectively in a crouch. I have no idea
>>what proportion of people that last conditions covers, though it
>>is very unlikely to be less than 10% or more than 90%.
>
>Ground speed or air speed? :-) (Speaking as someone who generally averages
>not much above 15mph, if that, but had a 20mph headwind this morning.)
freezing, roasting, with a reasonable road surface, not too many
traffic lights or traffic conflicts, no gut rot, hangovers, or any
other special reasons to cause slow progress.
But that was for classifying riders. My remark about one being
faster than another was in actual use, with at least some hills
and/or places where you need to slow right down and speed up again
(like traffic lights and junctions).
>(For what it's worth, when I tried Mike Causer's Speed Ross recumbent
>(on a day without wind) I was a bit faster than on my upright, and would
>expect to be a bit faster still if used to it.)
only to top racers and sad sacks. Recumbents are marginally slower
uphill and when accelerating, so you need more than a bit faster
on the flat to be faster overall.
Anyway, those figures are only rules of thumb, and individual riders
will vary considerably.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
soup
May 15, 2013, 11:50:45 AM5/15/13
to
Alan Braggins wrote:
>had a 20mph headwind this morning.)
Do you often have such zephyry weather?
>had a 20mph headwind this morning.)
Alistair Gunn
May 15, 2013, 2:46:08 PM5/15/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk twisted the electrons to say:
brief speed, but certainly in terms of average speed over hours simply on
the basis of increased comfort. On the drops on a racebike I *might* be a
little more aerodynamic than a highracer, but there's no way I'd be able
to stay in the drops for >6 hours (my nexk muscles would go on strike).
Round a ~70km loop in the Austrian Alps I was ~12% faster on the
recumbent but that's only at around 15mph. Of course, on what was my
local hillclimb course (2km of ~10%, with a nice pub at the top![1]), the
racebike was 26% faster ...
(The highracer also had the advantage that fitting the luggage probably
improved the aerodynamics!)
Yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data ...
[1] And also church's at the top and bottom, if it all goes wrong!
> My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
> only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
> the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
> than an educated guess.
I'm faster on a recumbent than I am on a racebike. Maybe not in terms of
> only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
> the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
> than an educated guess.
brief speed, but certainly in terms of average speed over hours simply on
the basis of increased comfort. On the drops on a racebike I *might* be a
little more aerodynamic than a highracer, but there's no way I'd be able
to stay in the drops for >6 hours (my nexk muscles would go on strike).
Round a ~70km loop in the Austrian Alps I was ~12% faster on the
recumbent but that's only at around 15mph. Of course, on what was my
local hillclimb course (2km of ~10%, with a nice pub at the top![1]), the
racebike was 26% faster ...
(The highracer also had the advantage that fitting the luggage probably
improved the aerodynamics!)
Yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data ...
[1] And also church's at the top and bottom, if it all goes wrong!
Danny Colyer
May 16, 2013, 4:05:03 AM5/16/13
to
On 15/05/2013 19:46, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> nm...@cam.ac.uk twisted the electrons to say:
>> My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
>> only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
>> the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
>> than an educated guess.
>
> I'm faster on a recumbent than I am on a racebike. Maybe not in terms of
> brief speed, but certainly in terms of average speed over hours simply on
> the basis of increased comfort. On the drops on a racebike I *might* be a
> little more aerodynamic than a highracer, but there's no way I'd be able
> to stay in the drops for >6 hours (my nexk muscles would go on strike).
I'm sure that will depend on the recumbent. Even with the improved
> nm...@cam.ac.uk twisted the electrons to say:
>> My best estimate is that a recumbent will be faster
>> only for riders who can sustain 20+ MPH (on the flat etc.), but
>> the data I am basing that on are so inchoate that it is no more
>> than an educated guess.
>
> I'm faster on a recumbent than I am on a racebike. Maybe not in terms of
> brief speed, but certainly in terms of average speed over hours simply on
> the basis of increased comfort. On the drops on a racebike I *might* be a
> little more aerodynamic than a highracer, but there's no way I'd be able
> to stay in the drops for >6 hours (my nexk muscles would go on strike).
comfort, I'd be very surprised if your average speed on something like a
Bike-E or a Peer Gynt approached your average on a road wedgie over any
distance.
FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
SM does not accelerate well.
> (The highracer also had the advantage that fitting the luggage probably
> improved the aerodynamics!)
advantages over a pannier were noticeable, as mentioned in my review:
http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_reviews.php?products_id=8311
(I didn't pay anything like �112.49 for it, I bought it when it was on
offer).
> Yes, I know the plural of anecdote is not data ...
Danny Colyer
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Zebee Johnstone
May 16, 2013, 4:10:44 AM5/16/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:05:03 +0100
fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
I do find the Giro 20 is better as a Giro 24 though.
> I bought a recumbent specific rack-top bag last year. The aerodynamic
> advantages over a pannier were noticeable, as mentioned in my review:
> http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_reviews.php?products_id=8311
>
> (I didn't pay anything like £112.49 for it, I bought it when it was on
> offer).
I do notice the panniers... But usually because they are full of
heavy stuff. MOst of the time I just use a seatback bag.
Zebee
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure that will depend on the recumbent. Even with the improved
> comfort, I'd be very surprised if your average speed on something like a
> Bike-E or a Peer Gynt approached your average on a road wedgie over any
> distance.
THe Giro is slower than the lighter Bacchettas but it can get moving
>
> I'm sure that will depend on the recumbent. Even with the improved
> comfort, I'd be very surprised if your average speed on something like a
> Bike-E or a Peer Gynt approached your average on a road wedgie over any
> distance.
fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
>
> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
> SM does not accelerate well.
I find the Giro can get moving when asked.
> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
> SM does not accelerate well.
The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
I do find the Giro 20 is better as a Giro 24 though.
> I bought a recumbent specific rack-top bag last year. The aerodynamic
> advantages over a pannier were noticeable, as mentioned in my review:
> http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_reviews.php?products_id=8311
>
> (I didn't pay anything like £112.49 for it, I bought it when it was on
> offer).
heavy stuff. MOst of the time I just use a seatback bag.
Zebee
Danny Colyer
May 16, 2013, 2:55:29 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 09:10, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:05:03 +0100
> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure that will depend on the recumbent. Even with the improved
>> comfort, I'd be very surprised if your average speed on something like a
>> Bike-E or a Peer Gynt approached your average on a road wedgie over any
>> distance.
>
> THe Giro is slower than the lighter Bacchettas but it can get moving
> fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
<snip>
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:05:03 +0100
> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure that will depend on the recumbent. Even with the improved
>> comfort, I'd be very surprised if your average speed on something like a
>> Bike-E or a Peer Gynt approached your average on a road wedgie over any
>> distance.
>
> THe Giro is slower than the lighter Bacchettas but it can get moving
> fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
>
> I find the Giro can get moving when asked.
>
> The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
Judging by a quick Google image search the basic configuration is
> I find the Giro can get moving when asked.
>
> The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
similar, though the Giro looks like a rather more basic design and seems
to lack the full suspension that the SM has.
Neither is anything like the Bike-E [1] or the Peer Gynt [2], though
(examples that I picked out as being particularly slow bikes). But then
they weren't built for speed. The Bike-E was built for city use (and
ISTR reading was the top selling recumbent of all time), the Peer Gynt
was built for laid-back touring (I quite fancied one myself until I read
a letter in RCN about 16 years ago from someone who had bought one and
been very disappointed to find out just how much slower it was than his
wedgie).
Both had the BB quite a bit lower than the seat, making them rather less
aero than a bike with a higher BB.
[1] http://www.advclinical.com/BikeE_DSC_0014_800x600_80pct.jpg
[2] http://renekmueller.com/Present/Pics/PeerGynt/Peer_Gynt_Radius2.jpg
Alan Braggins
May 16, 2013, 2:59:00 PM5/16/13
to
so when it's not windy, things are much easier.
Zebee Johnstone
May 16, 2013, 4:27:55 PM5/16/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:29 +0100
I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
angle and aero? Hand position?
Bacchettas seem most common in the US (surprise) and StreetMachines
and other Euro bikes in Europe (surprise again) so dunno if there are
any races or trials that have pitted one against the other. Here in
Oz there aren't many 'bents at all. A number of Greenspeed trikes
(once more, surprise!) but other than those a scattering of makes and
the odd (very odd, you should see the thing) home made carbon whatsit.
Zebee
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 09:10, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> THe Giro is slower than the lighter Bacchettas but it can get moving
>> fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
>
><snip>
>>
>> I find the Giro can get moving when asked.
>>
>> The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
>
> Judging by a quick Google image search the basic configuration is
> similar, though the Giro looks like a rather more basic design and seems
> to lack the full suspension that the SM has.
>
What effect does suspension have on speed?
> On 16/05/2013 09:10, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> THe Giro is slower than the lighter Bacchettas but it can get moving
>> fairly well when not weighed down by heaps of Stuff.
>
><snip>
>>
>> I find the Giro can get moving when asked.
>>
>> The Giro and the Street Machine are fairly similar aren't they?
>
> Judging by a quick Google image search the basic configuration is
> similar, though the Giro looks like a rather more basic design and seems
> to lack the full suspension that the SM has.
>
I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
angle and aero? Hand position?
Bacchettas seem most common in the US (surprise) and StreetMachines
and other Euro bikes in Europe (surprise again) so dunno if there are
any races or trials that have pitted one against the other. Here in
Oz there aren't many 'bents at all. A number of Greenspeed trikes
(once more, surprise!) but other than those a scattering of makes and
the odd (very odd, you should see the thing) home made carbon whatsit.
Zebee
kimble
May 16, 2013, 6:30:13 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/13 09:05, Danny Colyer wrote:
> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
> SM does not accelerate well.
I think I'd agree with that. I find that, on the same distinctly
> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
> SM does not accelerate well.
non-flat route that's about 30% on urban roads with traffic, lights,
giving way at junctions etc, I average about the same on my
Streetmachine as I do on my DF tourer. The DF climbs slightly better,
and is certainly quicker in start-stop traffic, but loses out when
cruising on the flat/downhill sections. (Partially because I'm a lot
happier about high speed descents on a suspended recumbent, but also
because my DF has a very upright riding position, to reduce the load on
my wrists.)
For reference, I find the ICE Sprint trike about 10% slower than the
Streetmachine (I actually tested this vaguely scientifically with
equivalent tyres and seat angles), due to more rolling resistance and
poorer aerodynamics. Faster-rolling tyres improve things dramatically.
Kim.
--
kimble
May 16, 2013, 6:40:16 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/13 21:27, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> What effect does suspension have on speed?
It adds weight, obviously. It should reduce energy lost to bouncing the
> What effect does suspension have on speed?
whole mass of the bike+rider up and down on rough surfaces (though I've
no idea how much) which means you can run tyres at higher pressures and
reduce their rolling resistance accordingly. More critically, it allows
you to be a lot more confident about marginal road surfaces - I can hit
potholes at speed on the Streetmachine that would cripple a lightweight
road bike. I've out-descended much more aero but un-suspended lowracer
recumbents because of this.
> I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
>
> Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
Bottom bracket height (relative to seat) is another - a higher BB
reducing your aero profile.
Of course changing either of those affects the biomechanics...
Being low to the ground brings in boundary layer effects - but I've no
idea how significant these actually are at the sort of speeds I'm likely
to achieve.
> Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
> angle and aero? Hand position?
better than open-cockpit or under-seat designs, which both put a lot of
arm and handlebar out in the airstream. I find there are real gains to
be made by tucking my elbows in (on a USS 'bent) at speed.
Kim.
--
Dave Larrington
May 17, 2013, 4:13:06 AM5/17/13
to
On 16/05/2013 21:27, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
>
> Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
> Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
> angle and aero? Hand position?
Quite a lot. My Baron X-low has the seat cranked back as far as it'll
> I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
>
> Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
> Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
> angle and aero? Hand position?
go. Plus keeping your hands/arms tucked in helps - I relocated the
brake levers under the stem and sawed the bars down as narrow as
possible. With a tail fairing I did 28.5 mph for 45 minutes on an
indoor velodrome and ~26 mph for two hours around a two mile motor
racing track on which all three straights had a headwind :-)
> Bacchettas seem most common in the US (surprise) and StreetMachines
> and other Euro bikes in Europe (surprise again) so dunno if there are
> any races or trials that have pitted one against the other. Here in
> Oz there aren't many 'bents at all. A number of Greenspeed trikes
> (once more, surprise!) but other than those a scattering of makes and
> the odd (very odd, you should see the thing) home made carbon whatsit.
Mega-Global Corporation Tri-Sled. Ben Goodall just edged over 70 mph in
Nitroglycerin while Gareth Hanks set the first official trike record at
71.79 in Completely Overzealous. Designed and built in three weeks of
all-nighters. Photos of same may be found by poking around
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_larrington/.
Kill, kill, kill, stab, murder and dispatch.
Peter Clinch
May 17, 2013, 4:53:04 AM5/17/13
to
On 16/05/2013 21:27, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> What effect does suspension have on speed?
"It depends".
As Kimble noted, over grot surfaces it makes the bike more sure-footed,
plus the lack of up-and-down for bike and rider as you hit the bumps
saves a lot of energy and that translates to potentially quicker. So
down a hill on a ruined sub-B back road in the middle of nowhere, quite
a bit. Around a velodrome, ~ damn all. In between there'll be a spectrum.
It's also the case that different suspensions are made for different
jobs. The sort of thing you find on a downhill MTB is there to soak up
enormous hits while the sort of thing you find on a Moulton is to help
even out small imperfections on normal roads. Both are good at their
own job and pretty hopeless at the other's. For the road, a properly
designed[1] road-going suspension will potentially aid speed but the
better the road the less significant it'll be.
> I have no idea as to what, besides weight, affects speeds on a 'bent.
>
> Recline I suppose but how much does that matter?
than the Optima Baron, for example, but still contrived better
aerodynamics with a rather radical chain routing and over-the-shoulder
frame (I suspect Mr. L can provide us with better details on this sort
of stuff).
> Some combination of seat angle and tube angle affecting both rider hip
> angle and aero? Hand position?
> Bacchettas seem most common in the US (surprise) and StreetMachines
> and other Euro bikes in Europe (surprise again) so dunno if there are
> any races or trials that have pitted one against the other.
days when folk would turn up on anything the fields appear to be getting
more specialised. Again, Mr. Larrington is the man for proper info here.
Pete.
[1] I've been talking about suspension, as opposed to "suspension", as
found on BSOs. That enables your BSO to go "boing" in an undamped and
not optimally useful way. AFAICT good suspension is non-trivial and
needs decent design and engineering input to come up with a well working
system, not just sticking a spring on it.
--
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/
Peter Clinch
May 17, 2013, 4:53:04 AM5/17/13
to
On 16/05/2013 23:30, kimble wrote:
> On 16/05/13 09:05, Danny Colyer wrote:
>> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
>> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
>> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
>> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
>> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
>> SM does not accelerate well.
>
> I think I'd agree with that. I find that, on the same distinctly
> non-flat route that's about 30% on urban roads with traffic, lights,
> giving way at junctions etc, I average about the same on my
> Streetmachine as I do on my DF tourer. The DF climbs slightly better,
> and is certainly quicker in start-stop traffic, but loses out when
> cruising on the flat/downhill sections. (Partially because I'm a lot
> happier about high speed descents on a suspended recumbent, but also
> because my DF has a very upright riding position, to reduce the load on
> my wrists.)
My first 'bent was an Orbit Crystal (aka Speed Ross). It was a quick
> On 16/05/13 09:05, Danny Colyer wrote:
>> FWIW once I'd got used to my Street Machine (touring recumbent, heavy,
>> built like a tank) I found that my cruising speed was faster than on my
>> old roadified ATB, but that my average speed was slightly slower over a
>> 5 mile commute. That was largely (as Nick would expect once informed
>> that there were no meaningful hills) due to stopping and starting. The
>> SM does not accelerate well.
>
> I think I'd agree with that. I find that, on the same distinctly
> non-flat route that's about 30% on urban roads with traffic, lights,
> giving way at junctions etc, I average about the same on my
> Streetmachine as I do on my DF tourer. The DF climbs slightly better,
> and is certainly quicker in start-stop traffic, but loses out when
> cruising on the flat/downhill sections. (Partially because I'm a lot
> happier about high speed descents on a suspended recumbent, but also
> because my DF has a very upright riding position, to reduce the load on
> my wrists.)
beast, notably quicker than my drop-bar tourer. In terms of overall
shape it was very similar to the Streetmachine, but unsuspended and
significantly lighter.
So partly it's an absolute like lighter and thus quicker to accelerate,
but partly in psychology IMHO. The SM encourages gentle cruising in
great comfort while the Crystal encouraged going as fast as possible.
Pete.
Alan Braggins
May 17, 2013, 7:39:59 AM5/17/13
to
In article <tm3g6a-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>, kimble wrote:
>Being low to the ground brings in boundary layer effects - but I've no
>idea how significant these actually are at the sort of speeds I'm likely
>to achieve.
If you're cycling beside a lowish hedge (e.g. one where you can see over
>Being low to the ground brings in boundary layer effects - but I've no
>idea how significant these actually are at the sort of speeds I'm likely
>to achieve.
the top because the ground drops down away from the road to the base of
the hedge) in a strong crosswind, being low to the ground can definitely
make a difference.
Peter Clinch
May 17, 2013, 9:56:20 AM5/17/13
to
the riverside waterfront in Dundee, fronted by a low wall (see
http://www.flickr.com/photos/indundee/2407084899/ [1]) she can very
easily leave me for dust if there's a side or side/head wind there.
Pete.
[1] not my pic, I just Googled it, so those stabilisers are nothing to
do with me!
Danny Colyer
May 18, 2013, 10:03:34 AM5/18/13
to
On 17/05/2013 14:56, Peter Clinch wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 12:39, Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <tm3g6a-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>, kimble wrote:
>>> Being low to the ground brings in boundary layer effects - but I've no
>>> idea how significant these actually are at the sort of speeds I'm likely
>>> to achieve.
>>
>> If you're cycling beside a lowish hedge (e.g. one where you can see over
>> the top because the ground drops down away from the road to the base of
>> the hedge) in a strong crosswind, being low to the ground can definitely
>> make a difference.
>
> Roos' Fiero is about a head lower than my Streetmachine. Riding along
> the riverside waterfront in Dundee, fronted by a low wall (see
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/indundee/2407084899/ [1]) she can very
> easily leave me for dust if there's a side or side/head wind there.
That's a good point that I hadn't considered.
> On 17/05/2013 12:39, Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <tm3g6a-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>, kimble wrote:
>>> Being low to the ground brings in boundary layer effects - but I've no
>>> idea how significant these actually are at the sort of speeds I'm likely
>>> to achieve.
>>
>> If you're cycling beside a lowish hedge (e.g. one where you can see over
>> the top because the ground drops down away from the road to the base of
>> the hedge) in a strong crosswind, being low to the ground can definitely
>> make a difference.
>
> Roos' Fiero is about a head lower than my Streetmachine. Riding along
> the riverside waterfront in Dundee, fronted by a low wall (see
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/indundee/2407084899/ [1]) she can very
> easily leave me for dust if there's a side or side/head wind there.
This is of great interest to me at the moment, as I'm seriously
considering buying a new bike next year. I have two (possibly
conflicting) requirements: I want something that's both lower
maintenance and a faster commuter than the Street Machine. And I'm not
interested in upright bikes - if I was I'd just get a simple fixie.
I've already reduced my maintenance load significantly over the last few
years by fitting Magura HS33 brakes, a ceramic rear rim and Gore Ride-On
gear cables. To go further I'm looking at my next bike having a Rohloff
Speedhub and hydraulic disk brakes.
My next bike will have both wheels the same size (to avoid the need to
carry two spare tubes). The question is, 20" (which will give me a
lower ride height) or 26" (giving me about the same ride height as the
SM)? DW has said that she'd rather I didn't get something lower, as she
finds the SM to be at a nice height for us to converse when we ride
together, but that's not a primary consideration (I'll still be able to
use the SM for family rides).
The aerodynamic effects of ride height aren't the only consideration
when I'm thinking about wheel size, though. I expect faster
acceleration with smaller wheels, but I also live in South
Gloucestershire, where road maintenance is merely something that other
local authorities are rumoured to do, which is an argument in favour of
bigger wheels.
I'll be visiting London later in the year, I hope to try a few different
bikes out at Bikefix and London Recumbents.
soup
May 18, 2013, 10:03:51 AM5/18/13
to
Alan Braggins wrote:
> And the largest hill on my commute is 27m above sea level,
> so when it's not windy, things are much easier.
I live 150m ASL, and from here everywhere is uphill from everywhere
> And the largest hill on my commute is 27m above sea level,
> so when it's not windy, things are much easier.
else ;o). The wind here is usually enough to take your breath away.
The trees/bushes etc are bent over with the prevailing wind, if (it
does happen honest) the wind is blowing in the opposite direction
it is fairly light 10~20 KPH and I do my usual route (16.5 miles)
backwards so the wind is at my back for the l o n g slightly uphill
bit. More normally the wind blows S-SW at about 20KPH the long uphilly
bit becomes slightly downhill (well it's undulating but the trend seems
slightly downhill) , and with the wind at my back I can get some (for
me, and on a sit up and beg hybrid) ridiculous speeds (mid 20s up to 30MPH).
http://postimg.org/image/ndqumidvp/
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 18, 2013, 11:49:44 AM5/18/13
to
In article <KaKdnR5jMrZl5AvM...@brightview.co.uk>,
Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
would be noticeable.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>
>The aerodynamic effects of ride height aren't the only consideration
>when I'm thinking about wheel size, though. I expect faster
>acceleration with smaller wheels, but I also live in South
>Gloucestershire, where road maintenance is merely something that other
>local authorities are rumoured to do, which is an argument in favour of
>bigger wheels.
Well, you can work out the acceleration improvement quite easily.
>
>The aerodynamic effects of ride height aren't the only consideration
>when I'm thinking about wheel size, though. I expect faster
>acceleration with smaller wheels, but I also live in South
>Gloucestershire, where road maintenance is merely something that other
>local authorities are rumoured to do, which is an argument in favour of
>bigger wheels.
Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
would be noticeable.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alistair Gunn
May 19, 2013, 6:31:03 AM5/19/13
to
Danny Colyer twisted the electrons to say:
If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
are :-
Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
Bacchetta Corsa
Challenge Hurricane
Challenge Furai
Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
Both of the Challenges are available with a pair of weight reduction
options (Light Allround & SL-II)) and I think you'd have to pick one of
them to get the weight noticably under the Streetmachine.
> My next bike will have both wheels the same size (to avoid the need to
> carry two spare tubes). The question is, 20" (which will give me a
> lower ride height) or 26" (giving me about the same ride height as the
> SM)? DW has said that she'd rather I didn't get something lower, as she
> finds the SM to be at a nice height for us to converse when we ride
> together, but that's not a primary consideration (I'll still be able to
> use the SM for family rides).
> The aerodynamic effects of ride height aren't the only consideration
> when I'm thinking about wheel size, though. I expect faster
> acceleration with smaller wheels, but I also live in South
> Gloucestershire, where road maintenance is merely something that other
> local authorities are rumoured to do, which is an argument in favour of
> bigger wheels.
My thoughts, which are probably worth precisely what you paid for them!
> carry two spare tubes). The question is, 20" (which will give me a
> lower ride height) or 26" (giving me about the same ride height as the
> SM)? DW has said that she'd rather I didn't get something lower, as she
> finds the SM to be at a nice height for us to converse when we ride
> together, but that's not a primary consideration (I'll still be able to
> use the SM for family rides).
> The aerodynamic effects of ride height aren't the only consideration
> when I'm thinking about wheel size, though. I expect faster
> acceleration with smaller wheels, but I also live in South
> Gloucestershire, where road maintenance is merely something that other
> local authorities are rumoured to do, which is an argument in favour of
> bigger wheels.
If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
are :-
Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
Bacchetta Corsa
Challenge Hurricane
Challenge Furai
Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
Both of the Challenges are available with a pair of weight reduction
options (Light Allround & SL-II)) and I think you'd have to pick one of
them to get the weight noticably under the Streetmachine.
Zebee Johnstone
May 19, 2013, 6:49:57 AM5/19/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 11:31:03 +0100
dealers can be worse... but if you can't get something from the dealer
get on to the US because they will send stuff directly.
I buggered up the adjustable stem adjuster on mine and nearly 2 years after I
bought it I emailed them to buy a new one. They questioned me about
how it broke and said I should have told them when it happened and
they'd have sent the new one for free.
While dealers might be a bit rough, Bacchetta themselves have a very
good rep for customer service and in my experience a well deserved
one.
Zebee
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> Bacchetta Corsa
> Challenge Hurricane
> Challenge Furai
>
> Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
> I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
> Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
Bacchetta themselves are usually very good about parts. Their
>
> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> Bacchetta Corsa
> Challenge Hurricane
> Challenge Furai
>
> Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
> I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
> Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
dealers can be worse... but if you can't get something from the dealer
get on to the US because they will send stuff directly.
I buggered up the adjustable stem adjuster on mine and nearly 2 years after I
bought it I emailed them to buy a new one. They questioned me about
how it broke and said I should have told them when it happened and
they'd have sent the new one for free.
While dealers might be a bit rough, Bacchetta themselves have a very
good rep for customer service and in my experience a well deserved
one.
Zebee
Alistair Gunn
May 19, 2013, 7:02:42 AM5/19/13
to
Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
point where I was at work thinking "I'm ringing Bacchetta and going
direct when I get home today", and then the UK distributer rang me before
I got home ...
> While dealers might be a bit rough, Bacchetta themselves have a very
> good rep for customer service and in my experience a well deserved
> one.
I've heard similar (about Bacchetta being very good themselves) online,
however once burnt twice shy ...
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 11:31:03 +0100
> Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> > Bacchetta Corsa
> > Challenge Hurricane
> > Challenge Furai
> >
> > Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
> > I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
> > Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
> Bacchetta themselves are usually very good about parts. Their
> dealers can be worse... but if you can't get something from the dealer
> get on to the US because they will send stuff directly.
<nods> I *almost* did go direct to Bacchetta. In fact it had got to the
> Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> > Bacchetta Corsa
> > Challenge Hurricane
> > Challenge Furai
> >
> > Personally I had bad experience trying to get spare parts for the Giro 26
> > I owned after an accident, so on that basis *I* couldn't recommend the
> > Bacchettas (other people may have had different experiences of course!).
> Bacchetta themselves are usually very good about parts. Their
> dealers can be worse... but if you can't get something from the dealer
> get on to the US because they will send stuff directly.
point where I was at work thinking "I'm ringing Bacchetta and going
direct when I get home today", and then the UK distributer rang me before
I got home ...
> While dealers might be a bit rough, Bacchetta themselves have a very
> good rep for customer service and in my experience a well deserved
> one.
however once burnt twice shy ...
Danny Colyer
May 19, 2013, 3:03:51 PM5/19/13
to
On 19/05/2013 11:31, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> My thoughts, which are probably worth precisely what you paid for them!
>
> If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
> improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
> are :-
>
> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> Bacchetta Corsa
> Challenge Hurricane
> Challenge Furai
The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
> My thoughts, which are probably worth precisely what you paid for them!
>
> If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
> improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
> are :-
>
> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
> Bacchetta Corsa
> Challenge Hurricane
> Challenge Furai
buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
The rack design has improved since then.
The Hurricane is one of the bikes that I'm considering. I looked at the
Furai, but couldn't see that it had any advantages over the Hurricane.
I don't think I've looked at Bacchettas. Perhaps I should.
Zebee Johnstone
May 19, 2013, 4:43:40 PM5/19/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:51 +0100
for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
about getting the stuff settled.
>
> The Hurricane is one of the bikes that I'm considering. I looked at the
> Furai, but couldn't see that it had any advantages over the Hurricane.
>
> I don't think I've looked at Bacchettas. Perhaps I should.
>
Have a look. Yeah I am an unashamed Bacchetta fan! The Giro is a top
notch all around bike, the ATT ali ones are lighter than my steel so
think about those if that's important. Corsas are lighter still but
eyewateringly expensive, at least here they are. (And more to the
point for me they don't make them in the small sized frame)
http://www.bacchettabikes.com/blog/ has and article on wheel sizes
and frames which might be handy.
The bacchettabikes site also hosts a forum which is the place to
go if you want answers about Bacchettas especially about mods and
what fits what but they are all a bit one eyed... so bentrideronline
is probably better for comparisons rather than technical information.
I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
Zebee
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2013 11:31, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> My thoughts, which are probably worth precisely what you paid for them!
>>
>> If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
>> improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
>> are :-
>>
>> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
>> Bacchetta Corsa
>> Challenge Hurricane
>> Challenge Furai
>
> The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
> buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
> was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
> The rack design has improved since then.
THe bod I know with a Furai uses a seat back bag. WOuldn't be enough
> On 19/05/2013 11:31, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> My thoughts, which are probably worth precisely what you paid for them!
>>
>> If you want both wheels to be the same size, and you want a performance
>> improvement over a Stretmachine then the obvious options occur to me
>> are :-
>>
>> Bacchetta Giro 26 ATT
>> Bacchetta Corsa
>> Challenge Hurricane
>> Challenge Furai
>
> The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
> buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
> was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
> The rack design has improved since then.
for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
about getting the stuff settled.
>
> The Hurricane is one of the bikes that I'm considering. I looked at the
> Furai, but couldn't see that it had any advantages over the Hurricane.
>
> I don't think I've looked at Bacchettas. Perhaps I should.
>
notch all around bike, the ATT ali ones are lighter than my steel so
think about those if that's important. Corsas are lighter still but
eyewateringly expensive, at least here they are. (And more to the
point for me they don't make them in the small sized frame)
http://www.bacchettabikes.com/blog/ has and article on wheel sizes
and frames which might be handy.
The bacchettabikes site also hosts a forum which is the place to
go if you want answers about Bacchettas especially about mods and
what fits what but they are all a bit one eyed... so bentrideronline
is probably better for comparisons rather than technical information.
I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
Zebee
Ian Jackson
May 21, 2013, 10:58:24 AM5/21/13
to
In article <kn87uc$2lb$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>, <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Well, you can work out the acceleration improvement quite easily.
>Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
>remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
>would be noticeable.
Only rims and tyres (and rim tape) count double (near enough).
>Well, you can work out the acceleration improvement quite easily.
>Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
>remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
>would be noticeable.
Spokes count about 1.5x.
(For the effective mass for acceleration only; everything counts 1x
for hill climbing effort. You know this but it bears repeating.)
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 21, 2013, 11:13:26 AM5/21/13
to
In article <FOw*G5...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>(For the effective mass for acceleration only; everything counts 1x
>for hill climbing effort. You know this but it bears repeating.)
Yes. And it doesn't make any difference whether you cycle or
walk uphill, or whether the pound is in your paunch or your pannier,
but pushing a laden bicycle is slightly less efficient.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Well, you can work out the acceleration improvement quite easily.
>>Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
>>remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
>>would be noticeable.
>
>Only rims and tyres (and rim tape) count double (near enough).
>Spokes count about 1.5x.
Correction accepted :-)
>>
>>Well, you can work out the acceleration improvement quite easily.
>>Just work out the proportion of the all-up weight you save,
>>remembering that rims and spokes count double. I doubt that it
>>would be noticeable.
>
>Only rims and tyres (and rim tape) count double (near enough).
>Spokes count about 1.5x.
>(For the effective mass for acceleration only; everything counts 1x
>for hill climbing effort. You know this but it bears repeating.)
walk uphill, or whether the pound is in your paunch or your pannier,
but pushing a laden bicycle is slightly less efficient.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alistair Gunn
May 21, 2013, 1:01:55 PM5/21/13
to
Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
> > The Hurricane is one of the bikes that I'm considering. I looked at the
> > Furai, but couldn't see that it had any advantages over the Hurricane.
> >
> > I don't think I've looked at Bacchettas. Perhaps I should.
> Have a look. Yeah I am an unashamed Bacchetta fan! The Giro is a top
> notch all around bike, the ATT ali ones are lighter than my steel so
> think about those if that's important. Corsas are lighter still but
> eyewateringly expensive, at least here they are. (And more to the
> point for me they don't make them in the small sized frame)
The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent. The (rather
old) Hurricane I tried at D.Tek many moons ago was interesting too, first
and only recumbent I've tried where I kept myself upright whilst
stationary by putting my hand on the kerb!
> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
Is that the standard Bacchetta rear rack or something you bought
seperately? I carried loaded panniers (in some cases with multiple
multi-packs of coke) on the standard rear rack without issue, and I've
seen a photo of someone who'd fitted a Topeak rear rack.
(I also had a Radical Solo Classic which was useful for the commute.
Even did a tour using only that as luggage.)
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:51 +0100
> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
> > The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
> > buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
> > was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
> > The rack design has improved since then.
> THe bod I know with a Furai uses a seat back bag. WOuldn't be enough
> for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
> about getting the stuff settled.
How about Radical Sidepods?
> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
> > The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
> > buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
> > was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
> > The rack design has improved since then.
> THe bod I know with a Furai uses a seat back bag. WOuldn't be enough
> for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
> about getting the stuff settled.
> > The Hurricane is one of the bikes that I'm considering. I looked at the
> > Furai, but couldn't see that it had any advantages over the Hurricane.
> >
> > I don't think I've looked at Bacchettas. Perhaps I should.
> Have a look. Yeah I am an unashamed Bacchetta fan! The Giro is a top
> notch all around bike, the ATT ali ones are lighter than my steel so
> think about those if that's important. Corsas are lighter still but
> eyewateringly expensive, at least here they are. (And more to the
> point for me they don't make them in the small sized frame)
I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent. The (rather
old) Hurricane I tried at D.Tek many moons ago was interesting too, first
and only recumbent I've tried where I kept myself upright whilst
stationary by putting my hand on the kerb!
> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
seperately? I carried loaded panniers (in some cases with multiple
multi-packs of coke) on the standard rear rack without issue, and I've
seen a photo of someone who'd fitted a Topeak rear rack.
(I also had a Radical Solo Classic which was useful for the commute.
Even did a tour using only that as luggage.)
kimble
May 21, 2013, 1:40:12 PM5/21/13
to
On 21/05/13 18:01, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
> I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
They don't?
> The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
> I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
Ah well, that makes theoretical n+1 decisions a fair bit easier. The
Corsa 24 was the only Bacchetta I've encountered that's acceptably
Kim-sized, and I was never particularly enamoured by the prospect of 24"
wheels (or open-cockpit handlebars).
I'm mostly lusting after the Challenge Fujin SL...
Kim.
--
soup
May 21, 2013, 2:59:26 PM5/21/13
to
What if like me the pound is in your paunch (more like a stone and a
half) AND in your pannier (all sorts of crap in there, will really need
to clean it out one of these days)? ;o)
half) AND in your pannier (all sorts of crap in there, will really need
to clean it out one of these days)? ;o)
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 21, 2013, 3:06:59 PM5/21/13
to
Zebee Johnstone
May 21, 2013, 4:28:10 PM5/21/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Tue, 21 May 2013 18:40:12 +0100
version.
But only in the medium and large frames so no good for me.
X-Seam: Medium: 37"-46", Large: 41"-50"
(Although those sizes seem odd. My X-seam is 39" but I can't fit a
medium frame, seat more than halfway up the stick!)
Zebee
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
> On 21/05/13 18:01, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
>> I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
>
> They don't?
>
> Ah well, that makes theoretical n+1 decisions a fair bit easier. The
> Corsa 24 was the only Bacchetta I've encountered that's acceptably
> Kim-sized, and I was never particularly enamoured by the prospect of 24"
> wheels (or open-cockpit handlebars).
>
http://bacchettabikes.com/bikes/performance/corsa lists a 650c
> On 21/05/13 18:01, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
>> I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
>
> They don't?
>
> Ah well, that makes theoretical n+1 decisions a fair bit easier. The
> Corsa 24 was the only Bacchetta I've encountered that's acceptably
> Kim-sized, and I was never particularly enamoured by the prospect of 24"
> wheels (or open-cockpit handlebars).
>
version.
But only in the medium and large frames so no good for me.
X-Seam: Medium: 37"-46", Large: 41"-50"
(Although those sizes seem odd. My X-seam is 39" but I can't fit a
medium frame, seat more than halfway up the stick!)
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
May 21, 2013, 4:30:57 PM5/21/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Tue, 21 May 2013 18:01:55 +0100
>
>> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
>> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
>
> Is that the standard Bacchetta rear rack or something you bought
> seperately? I carried loaded panniers (in some cases with multiple
> multi-packs of coke) on the standard rear rack without issue, and I've
> seen a photo of someone who'd fitted a Topeak rear rack.
>
My dealer (flyingfurniture.com.au) supplied it. I don't think it's
the Bacchetta one, it has no branding except some Chinese characters.
I haven't carried anything really heavy on it. It's pretty sturdy
though and I think could carry a fair amount. If I want to manage
something heavy I use the trailer.
Zebee
>> for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
>> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
>> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
>> about getting the stuff settled.
>
> How about Radical Sidepods?
Didn't know about them when I got the rack, and now I have one, why?
>> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
>> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
>> about getting the stuff settled.
>
> How about Radical Sidepods?
>
>> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
>> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
>
> Is that the standard Bacchetta rear rack or something you bought
> seperately? I carried loaded panniers (in some cases with multiple
> multi-packs of coke) on the standard rear rack without issue, and I've
> seen a photo of someone who'd fitted a Topeak rear rack.
>
the Bacchetta one, it has no branding except some Chinese characters.
I haven't carried anything really heavy on it. It's pretty sturdy
though and I think could carry a fair amount. If I want to manage
something heavy I use the trailer.
Zebee
Message has been deleted
davethedave
May 22, 2013, 10:40:16 AM5/22/13
to
that is the one that shouts buy me. really LOUDLY! It just looks really
fast standing still. Fortunately I'm not that rich. :(
--
davethedave
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 22, 2013, 11:21:02 AM5/22/13
to
In article <g55t6a-...@dtd.zapto.org>,
It's cheaper than the one I am looking at, with the configuration
I would want :-(
Try ICE Adventure FS, with full touring rig and possibly Rohloff!
Not quite the same sort of recumbent :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
I would want :-(
Try ICE Adventure FS, with full touring rig and possibly Rohloff!
Not quite the same sort of recumbent :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alistair Gunn
May 22, 2013, 1:13:33 PM5/22/13
to
kimble twisted the electrons to say:
appear to be any mention of the 24. :-( At one point in addition to
specifically mentioning the Corsa 24, they also offered the 24 as an
option for the (titanium) Aero ...
> Ah well, that makes theoretical n+1 decisions a fair bit easier. The
> Corsa 24 was the only Bacchetta I've encountered that's acceptably
> Kim-sized, and I was never particularly enamoured by the prospect of 24"
> wheels (or open-cockpit handlebars).
The 24" wheels (and the limited tyre options) where somewhat off-putting
to me too. The open-cockpit I wasn't too bothered about having had both
a Giro 20 and a Giro 26 ("Darth Kevin" very generously let me swap the 20
I'd bought from him for a 26).
> I'm mostly lusting after the Challenge Fujin SL...
... an entirely understandable lusting I'd say! The Fujin SL (or maybe
the Fujin Tour SL-ii?) makes the list[1] of things I'm considering for my
return to recumbents, but I suspect I may well end up with a Streetmachine
as plenty of them seem to end up eBay! (Of course, whatever D.Tek has in
stock at the time when I finally scrape together enough ���'s.)
[1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
HPVelo Streetmachine
HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
Challenge Fujin SL
[2] Well I say "no paricular order" but for some reason the Speedmachine
appeals! But it would probably have to be new and that means ���'s,
and the Challenge Fujin might be better value for money?
> On 21/05/13 18:01, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
> > I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
> They don't?
Just had another glance round Bacchetta's website and there doesn't
> > The Corsa 24 (which they don't seem to make any more) was the closest
> > I've experienced to roadbike acceleration on a recumbent.
> They don't?
appear to be any mention of the 24. :-( At one point in addition to
specifically mentioning the Corsa 24, they also offered the 24 as an
option for the (titanium) Aero ...
> Ah well, that makes theoretical n+1 decisions a fair bit easier. The
> Corsa 24 was the only Bacchetta I've encountered that's acceptably
> Kim-sized, and I was never particularly enamoured by the prospect of 24"
> wheels (or open-cockpit handlebars).
to me too. The open-cockpit I wasn't too bothered about having had both
a Giro 20 and a Giro 26 ("Darth Kevin" very generously let me swap the 20
I'd bought from him for a 26).
> I'm mostly lusting after the Challenge Fujin SL...
the Fujin Tour SL-ii?) makes the list[1] of things I'm considering for my
return to recumbents, but I suspect I may well end up with a Streetmachine
as plenty of them seem to end up eBay! (Of course, whatever D.Tek has in
stock at the time when I finally scrape together enough ���'s.)
[1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
HPVelo Streetmachine
HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
Challenge Fujin SL
[2] Well I say "no paricular order" but for some reason the Speedmachine
appeals! But it would probably have to be new and that means ���'s,
and the Challenge Fujin might be better value for money?
kimble
May 22, 2013, 7:50:35 PM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/13 18:13, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> kimble twisted the electrons to say:
> kimble twisted the electrons to say:
>> I'm mostly lusting after the Challenge Fujin SL...
>
> ... an entirely understandable lusting I'd say! The Fujin SL (or maybe
> the Fujin Tour SL-ii?) makes the list[1] of things I'm considering for my
> return to recumbents, but I suspect I may well end up with a Streetmachine
> as plenty of them seem to end up eBay!
We're back to the functional classification of bikes thing, I think.
>
> ... an entirely understandable lusting I'd say! The Fujin SL (or maybe
> the Fujin Tour SL-ii?) makes the list[1] of things I'm considering for my
> return to recumbents, but I suspect I may well end up with a Streetmachine
> as plenty of them seem to end up eBay!
A Fujin SL makes sense to me as an n+1, as I already own a Streetmachine
(and a do-it-all DF hybrid). It's probably fair to say that you can do
most things on a Streetmachine, except going fast without gravitational
assistance. As such, something really quick and a fair bit less
over-engineered makes sense as an addition for audaxy type stuff.
If you're looking at only one recumbent (most sane people do), then I'd
suggest that some suspension (or big wheels a la Bacchetta) and proper
load-carrying ability would be desirable. There's a weather-related
argument for being a bit higher off the ground than a Fujin, too.
I've not ridden a Speedmachine, but the Grasshopper is functionally
similar enough to the Streetmachine to make the folding version very
attractive, if only so you could fit it in a normal sized car (I don't
find trains a problem with the SMGT, but I do have the boom slightly
shorter than the minimum extension). I actually think the Grasshopper
handles slightly better, at least when unloaded. Conversely, the
lowrider racks on the Streetmachine are less of a compromise, and a 26"
wheel does make the gearing simpler.
Kim.
--
Zebee Johnstone
May 22, 2013, 8:40:25 PM5/22/13
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 23 May 2013 00:50:35 +0100
There's a railway underpass I use now and then which is right next to
a river and floods at high tide.
I was out with some people one weekend and there was a king tide: the
water was high enough that it was over the BBs of the uprights and was
brushing the bottom of my pannier.
I rode through carefully, the upright riders complained their socks
got wet....
and the trike rider decided to walk it.
Zebee
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
>
> If you're looking at only one recumbent (most sane people do), then I'd
> suggest that some suspension (or big wheels a la Bacchetta) and proper
> load-carrying ability would be desirable. There's a weather-related
> argument for being a bit higher off the ground than a Fujin, too.
>
Heh....
>
> If you're looking at only one recumbent (most sane people do), then I'd
> suggest that some suspension (or big wheels a la Bacchetta) and proper
> load-carrying ability would be desirable. There's a weather-related
> argument for being a bit higher off the ground than a Fujin, too.
>
There's a railway underpass I use now and then which is right next to
a river and floods at high tide.
I was out with some people one weekend and there was a king tide: the
water was high enough that it was over the BBs of the uprights and was
brushing the bottom of my pannier.
I rode through carefully, the upright riders complained their socks
got wet....
and the trike rider decided to walk it.
Zebee
Danny Colyer
May 23, 2013, 3:06:51 AM5/23/13
to
On 22/05/2013 18:13, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> [1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
> HPVelo Streetmachine
> HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
> HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
> Challenge Fujin SL
All of those bikes except for the Grasshopper have different sized
> [1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
> HPVelo Streetmachine
> HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
> HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
> Challenge Fujin SL
wheels. It might not bother you, but I find it a PITA to have to carry
two spare tubes.
I think if I buy another bike then I'm most likely to end up with the
Grasshopper, but a Hurricane is still a serious possibility. I also
intend to try out Bikefix's Raptobike Midracer, which could be a
definite contender if the front wheel drive doesn't prevent it from
having a reasonable turning circle at low speeds:
http://www.bikefix.co.uk/raptobike-midracer
Message has been deleted
Dave Larrington
May 23, 2013, 3:19:35 AM5/23/13
to
from Tigers) had phoned Oxfordshire County Council's roads department.
"No", quoth the gribley, "there is no flooding anywhere". This
statement was found to contain traces of Lie as various of us negotiated
a back road which had the water coming up to the base of my
Speedmachine's seat and thus had my SON dynamo under 20 cm of water.
It all still worked afterwards.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The thing about Tony Parsons, though, the defining aspect of his
personality, is that he is a complete twat.
Peter Clinch
May 23, 2013, 5:32:08 AM5/23/13
to
On 19/05/2013 21:43, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
I have rear and underseat on the Streetmachine. The underseats are less
> I have been pondering one of the underseat racks but my cheap chinese
> rack manages panniers OK so no real need for it.
used but if you're going touring are worth having, for a couple of
reasons. First, it increases the amount of shite you can cart about
(actually, that's not always a good thing!) but it also means you can
stick the heavy stuff between the wheels and under the rider so the only
real effect on the handling is gluing you to the road a bit better.
You need quite aweight on the back of the SM to start affecting the
handling but it does happen, where the lowriders are as close to neutral
concerning handling as you're going to get while keeping the stuff on
the bike itself (haven't tried trailers so I don't know how that'd
compare).
But if you're not carrying big/heavy then not really much point. Also
worth noting that the above endorsement applies to the Streetmachine
where the lowriders are between the wheels. On something like a
Grasshopper they're further back so I'd guess wouldn't be so neutral.
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/
Peter Clinch
May 23, 2013, 5:32:16 AM5/23/13
to
On 21/05/2013 18:01, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
>> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:51 +0100
>> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>>> The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
>>> buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
>>> was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
>>> The rack design has improved since then.
>> THe bod I know with a Furai uses a seat back bag. WOuldn't be enough
>> for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
>> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
>> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
>> about getting the stuff settled.
>
> How about Radical Sidepods?
They have both plus and minus points.
> Zebee Johnstone twisted the electrons to say:
>> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:03:51 +0100
>> Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
>>> The Hurricane was the most fun of all the bikes that I tried before
>>> buying the Street Machine. I rejected it 13 years ago because the rack
>>> was crap (it wasn't suitable for anything other than a racktop bag).
>>> The rack design has improved since then.
>> THe bod I know with a Furai uses a seat back bag. WOuldn't be enough
>> for me because I commute to work on mine so want to be able to take a
>> pannier. I can just fit the work stuff in my seat back bag but the
>> pannier is more convenient, just remove and go rather than fiddling
>> about getting the stuff settled.
>
> How about Radical Sidepods?
The plus: they're the coolest looking bike luggage there is, actually
improving the appearance of a bike you hang them on; you can put long
stuff (tent poles, for example) completely inside; they have more
capacity than other panniers so there's less need to split stuff up
which makes packing easier, as do the very long access zips.
The minus: they don't come on and off easily. When we're touring Roos
generally leaves hers on the bike the whole time, including overnight
parking, as they're a bit of a fiddle to get in place; they only work in
pairs; though they do have compression straps they don't under-pack that
gracefully, or in other words if you haven't got a job that needs two
reasonably large full panniers they don't work that well.
Exec summary, excellent for touring, a sledgehammer/nut thing for
general day to day.
Peter Clinch
May 23, 2013, 6:32:52 AM5/23/13
to
On 22/05/2013 18:13, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> kimble twisted the electrons to say:
>> I'm mostly lusting after the Challenge Fujin SL...
On paper it certainly look slike a dream, though my one time on a
Challenge (a Mistral, dog of a bike IMHO though the Maggies it had on
inspired me to upgrade my brakes) told me my back and their seat were
not similar enough shapes.
Moral of Story: you must try before you buy.
> ... an entirely understandable lusting I'd say! The Fujin SL (or maybe
> the Fujin Tour SL-ii?) makes the list[1] of things I'm considering for my
> return to recumbents, but I suspect I may well end up with a Streetmachine
> as plenty of them seem to end up eBay! (Of course, whatever D.Tek has in
> stock at the time when I finally scrape together enough ���'s.)
>
> [1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
> HPVelo Streetmachine
> HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
> HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
> Challenge Fujin SL
> [2] Well I say "no paricular order" but for some reason the Speedmachine
> appeals! But it would probably have to be new and that means ���'s,
> and the Challenge Fujin might be better value for money?
I don't get on too well with tillers. In general I'm a fan of underseat
steerers but that's my touring bias, and I think having a bike that
calls itslef "Speedmachine" which you proceed to hobble the aerodynamics
of is somehow Wrong.
I'm also rather ambivalent about the Bodylink seat (also a problem on
most other HPVels these days). While the adjustability is clearly their
main selling point the fact is that HPVel's old hardshell "Medium" size
fits me very well indeed and no amount of faffing about with the
variables on the Bodylink has got it any better than "not quite as comfy
as I'm used to". Bah!
For a stoopid n+1 the Nazca Fuego looks like it might be the thing. If
I replaced my Streetmachine due to disaster (that's the only obvious
reason I would) then I think a Nazca Fiero (as used by Roos) would be a
distinct possibility. It's a 20/20 (I agree with Danny's point that
carrying 2 tubes is a faff), it does the sort of thing I want, it's a
bit more fun than the SM (though not quite so good with loads or pilot
view, you choose, you lose) and it's good looking with a very comfy
seat. I tried a Grasshopper when Roos was auditioning, and neither of
us were wowed (nothing wrong with it, just not exciting enough to spend
all that cash on), while the Fiero put an immediate grin on both our
faces. We went to NL to try it, but Laidback in Edinburgh are a UK
dealer now.
Dr Zoidberg
May 23, 2013, 9:29:06 AM5/23/13
to
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kmm42s$pmo$1...@dont-email.me...
> I thought I'd try a road bike last weekend to see how it compares to my
> Trek hybrid as I'd not ridden anything similar since the 1980s when they
> were called racers, and while it initially didn't seem that much quicker
> or easier on the road, as soon as I got back on my bike the differences
> were quite apparent. I've now ordered a Trek 1.2 which should be with me
> in a week or two once the finance department at work pay for the Cycle to
> Work voucher.
>
The bike is at the shop being assembled ready for me to collect later.
I'm looking forward to a ride tonight.
--
Alex
davethedave
May 23, 2013, 11:08:19 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:32:16 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> How about Radical Sidepods?
>
> They have both plus and minus points.
>
> The plus: they're the coolest looking bike luggage there is, actually
> improving the appearance of a bike you hang them on; you can put long
> stuff (tent poles, for example) completely inside; they have more
> capacity than other panniers so there's less need to split stuff up
> which makes packing easier, as do the very long access zips.
>
> The minus: they don't come on and off easily. When we're touring Roos
> generally leaves hers on the bike the whole time, including overnight
> parking, as they're a bit of a fiddle to get in place; they only work in
> pairs; though they do have compression straps they don't under-pack that
> gracefully, or in other words if you haven't got a job that needs two
> reasonably large full panniers they don't work that well.
>
> Exec summary, excellent for touring, a sledgehammer/nut thing for
> general day to day.
Better to have a hammer and need a nut cracker than need a hammer and
>> How about Radical Sidepods?
>
> They have both plus and minus points.
>
> The plus: they're the coolest looking bike luggage there is, actually
> improving the appearance of a bike you hang them on; you can put long
> stuff (tent poles, for example) completely inside; they have more
> capacity than other panniers so there's less need to split stuff up
> which makes packing easier, as do the very long access zips.
>
> The minus: they don't come on and off easily. When we're touring Roos
> generally leaves hers on the bike the whole time, including overnight
> parking, as they're a bit of a fiddle to get in place; they only work in
> pairs; though they do have compression straps they don't under-pack that
> gracefully, or in other words if you haven't got a job that needs two
> reasonably large full panniers they don't work that well.
>
> Exec summary, excellent for touring, a sledgehammer/nut thing for
> general day to day.
have a nutcracker.
--
davethedave
Dr Zoidberg
May 23, 2013, 2:38:43 PM5/23/13
to
news:knl575$rsj$1...@dont-email.me...
Thereby guaranteeing lots of rain.
--
Alex
--
Alex
Alistair Gunn
May 23, 2013, 3:31:39 PM5/23/13
to
Danny Colyer twisted the electrons to say:
owned a Giro 20. The 2-sizes of wheel thing is a bit of a pain I agree,
but not complete a deal breaker for me.
> I think if I buy another bike then I'm most likely to end up with the
> Grasshopper, but a Hurricane is still a serious possibility. I also
> intend to try out Bikefix's Raptobike Midracer, which could be a
> definite contender if the front wheel drive doesn't prevent it from
> having a reasonable turning circle at low speeds:
> http://www.bikefix.co.uk/raptobike-midracer
Ah yes! The Raptobike Midracer should also have been on that list! Not
that I've ridden either form of Raptobike alas (I moved away from York
about a week before the lowracer turned up for the Velovision review!).
> On 22/05/2013 18:13, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > [1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
> > HPVelo Streetmachine
> > HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
> > HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
> > Challenge Fujin SL
> All of those bikes except for the Grasshopper have different sized
> wheels. It might not bother you, but I find it a PITA to have to carry
> two spare tubes.
<nods> I've owned a Grasshopper and a (very old) Streetmachine, and also
> > [1] In no particular order the list consists of :-
> > HPVelo Streetmachine
> > HPVelo Grasshopper (FX)
> > HPVelo Speedmachine[2]
> > Challenge Fujin SL
> All of those bikes except for the Grasshopper have different sized
> wheels. It might not bother you, but I find it a PITA to have to carry
> two spare tubes.
owned a Giro 20. The 2-sizes of wheel thing is a bit of a pain I agree,
but not complete a deal breaker for me.
> I think if I buy another bike then I'm most likely to end up with the
> Grasshopper, but a Hurricane is still a serious possibility. I also
> intend to try out Bikefix's Raptobike Midracer, which could be a
> definite contender if the front wheel drive doesn't prevent it from
> having a reasonable turning circle at low speeds:
> http://www.bikefix.co.uk/raptobike-midracer
that I've ridden either form of Raptobike alas (I moved away from York
about a week before the lowracer turned up for the Velovision review!).
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages