Next best thing to a Brooks Pro
* * Chas
25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
ridden.
A while back I looked for a replacement for an 15 year old Avocet Gel
saddle for an old mountain bike. After doing some web searching I bought
a WTB Pure V Race saddle.
It's kind of gaudy with the silver metallic trim and all but the wide
"whale tail" back portion gives the same support as a Brooks Pro or
probably a B17. It has a "love channel" groove molded down the middle
and the nose is softly padded and dropped down to avoid pressure in
personal areas.
Since then I bought 2 more WTBs, one for another MTB and one for my
newest retro road bike which I put to the test yesterday on a 47 mile
ride. It was very comfortable but not quite as good as a Brooks.
It's almost too wide in the rear because when I'm "up on the rivets" my
inner thighs contact the sides of the saddle. Aside from that, I'd
recommend it to Brooks riders as a wet weather alternative.
Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
Chas.
DougC
> I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
> 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
> ridden.
> Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
>
> Chas.
>
If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
and no saddle can fix that.
The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
materials to usefully connect two wheels.
Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
~
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
>and no saddle can fix that.
LOL.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old
> > with 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle
> > I've ever ridden. ..... Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >
>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are
> more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
Yay, the biannual recumbent zealot thread! It's about time.
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
Except that I don't have any ass pain related to riding my upright bike,
even doing 180 mile rides. At 250-375 miles, I start to get a little
sore. Listening to the bitching I hear from recumbent riders about
their butts after 50 or 100 miles, it doesn't seem that there is any
real improvement. Also, I noticed that recumbent riders generally
finished behind the standard bike riders at the 2003 PBP, despite
getting a head start.
> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the
> Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame
> is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least
> amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.
No design of anything is the zenith, until it's the last one made.
> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
> with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride
> a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall. ~
More of an idiot's question, I'd say. Why make such a divisive issue
out of it? I've tried recumbents, didn't like 'em. I have no pain
issues with my bikes, so why switch? For me, recumbents are not
inherently superior. They create more problems that they solve IMHO-
for one thing, I couldn't get one down the stairs into my basement
storage area. And there's the freakishly long chain with all the
various kludges to try to deal with that.
If recumbents work better for you, then ride 'em! I have no trouble
with that. I know a number of enthusiastic recumbent riders and
builders, who love riding their bikes. I think that's great, and if a
recumbent gets someone out riding a bike who wouldn't ride otherwise, I
think that's even better. But I don't understand this militant attitude
from recumbentists who seem miffed that the whole world has not adopted
their fancy. Fortunately folks like you are in the minority of
recumbent riders.
Mike Ellis
> * * Chas wrote:
>> I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
>> 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
>> ridden.
>> .....
>> Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
>>
>> Chas.
>>
>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
>
a car seat I have pain after about an hour. I wish I could somehow fix
my Brooks saddle into the car!
* * Chas
"DougC" <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
news:1l7%g.6$yw...@newsfe03.lga...
How about a "date with the Turk" seat? It's a seat post with only a
fully rounded top..... A leftover from Vlad the Impaler.
It's good that you are happy with your recumbent bike. Once I get a seat
properly adjusted I have very few seat comfort issues.
Cars on the other hand give me seating problems. I have a Volvo noted
for their much touted anatomically designed seating and a Ford Taurus. I
have seating problems with both of them and most other modern cars that
I've driven or ridden in. I've spent over a thousand dollars during the
20 years on orthopedic car seat devices.
Chas.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1l7%g.6$yw...@newsfe03.lga>, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
> > * * Chas wrote:
> > > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old
> > > with 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle
> > > I've ever ridden. ..... Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> > >
> >
> > If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are
> > more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> > crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> > got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Yay, the biannual recumbent zealot thread! It's about time.
>
> > Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> > upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> > problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> > and no saddle can fix that.
>
> Except that I don't have any ass pain related to riding my upright bike,
> even doing 180 mile rides. At 250-375 miles, I start to get a little
> sore. Listening to the bitching I hear from recumbent riders about
> their butts after 50 or 100 miles, it doesn't seem that there is any
This has nothing to do with seat comfort per say, but is related to
overuse of poorly trained muscles.
It is possible to do very occasional long distance rides on properly
designed recumbents in comfort, while the same does not appear to be
true of uprights (based on the complaint of upright club riders on the
first rides of spring while the re-acclimate to upright saddles).
> Also, I noticed that recumbent riders generally finished behind the standard bike riders
> at the 2003 PBP, despite getting a head start.
Which proves nothing, since the relative fitness of the riders is
unknown. Put a bunch of fat old geezers (FOGs) on state of the art
performance recumbents and a group of UCI professionals on English
3-speed roadsters, and see which group is faster.
> > The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the
> > Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame
> > is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least
> > amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>
> No design of anything is the zenith, until it's the last one made.
>
> > Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
> > with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride
> > a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> > then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> > bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> > lighter/better-climbing bike overall. ~
>
> More of an idiot's question, I'd say. Why make such a divisive issue
> out of it? I've tried recumbents, didn't like 'em. I have no pain
> issues with my bikes, so why switch? For me, recumbents are not
> inherently superior. They create more problems that they solve IMHO-
> for one thing, I couldn't get one down the stairs into my basement
> storage area. And there's the freakishly long chain with all the
> various kludges to try to deal with that.
Ever consider that the population of regular upright riders may well
consist of persons who have a greater than normal tolerance for sitting
on an upright saddle? If there are people who find uprights
uncomfortable despite "proper fit", would you rather they not take up
cycling? Then there are the "newbie's" who may well give up on
cycling when they try it and find it initially uncomfortable - is that
a good thing?
> If recumbents work better for you, then ride 'em! I have no trouble
> with that. I know a number of enthusiastic recumbent riders and
> builders, who love riding their bikes. I think that's great, and if a
> recumbent gets someone out riding a bike who wouldn't ride otherwise, I
> think that's even better. But I don't understand this militant attitude
> from recumbentists who seem miffed that the whole world has not adopted
> their fancy. Fortunately folks like you are in the minority of
> recumbent riders.
And I do not understand why so many upright riders are downright rude,
and feel the need to give unsolicited lectures on upright bicycle fit
or to make unsolicited snide and/or derogatory comments. No, I am not
talking about Usenet, but real life.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Donald Gillies
upright training bicycle, and the same bicycle (same maker) in
recumbant position.
For me, maximum watts are generated when leaning over the bars of a
standard upright bicycle. If I sit more upright, my heart rate
immediately races and i end up having to bend over forward again to
achieve maximum watts.
So is the advantage of a recumbant 100% in wind resistance? According
to my experiments, I am a weaker cyclist when riding in the recumbant
position, at least from my perspective.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Donald Gillies wrote:
> I find that when i'm at the gym, i ride two types of bicycles : an
> upright training bicycle, and the same bicycle (same maker) in
>
> For me, maximum watts are generated when leaning over the bars of a
> standard upright bicycle. If I sit more upright, my heart rate
> immediately races and i end up having to bend over forward again to
> achieve maximum watts.
Is this sustainable power output or anaerobic power output?
What little evidence that exists indicates that maximum anaerobic power
is significantly greater in the upright position than the recumbent
position, while the picture for sustainable power is less clear.
> So is the advantage of a recumb[e]nt 100% in wind resistance? According
> to my experiments, I am a weaker cyclist when riding in the recumb[e]nt
> position, at least from my perspective.
At this point, I believe there still needs to be more research done to
answer these questions.
One point that needs to be made is that recumbent performance should
NOT be generalized, since the variations in recumbent performance
between different designs are greater than those for upright bicycles.
The differences are not only in weight, rolling resistance and
aerodynamic drag, but the effect of riding position on performance.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
DougC wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
> > 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
> > ridden.
> > .....
> > Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >
> > Chas.
> >
>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
here we go again..why don't you go find another -bent specific NG to
wallow in?
OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
a saddle sore or anything else like that. Have you ever had irritation
from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
your 'bent??
>
> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
> Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
> the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> materials to usefully connect two wheels.
Let me knwo when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fronge' of bicycles.
>
> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
> saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
goes.
DougC
> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
> a saddle sore or anything else like that. Have you ever had irritation
> from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
> your 'bent??
As to the condition of your rear end, that is not an appropriate subject
for this newsgroup.
> Let me knOw when 'bents are mainstream.
How sad, the mark of a sheeple....
> I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
> them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
> goes.
>
Well most are probably already made in the far east--but even then, as I
said. If you bought a diamond frame, you bought the cheapest solution
there is. ...And for someone with "Campagnolo" in their name, it would
seem odd that you would be one to complain about prices.
[end]
* * Chas
Thoughts on recumbent bikes:
Of the 10 or so recumbent riders I've talked to about their bikes over
the years, most of them rode these because of some physical problem, the
others were interestingly eccentric. Both reasons are valid
justifications.
I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I found
it difficult to balance.
My personal concerns are about being able to easily balance the bike and
getting my feet down quickly in an emergency situation. I had a hip
replacement and I was told to avoid impact to my new joint which meant
giving up running, skiing or anything else that could overload the hip.
I work out several morning a week on a tread climber, elliptical and a
recumbent stationary bike. I use the recumbent during my cool down phase
where I work on increasing my cadence because it has foot straps and the
uprights don't. I've experienced some low back discomfort on the
recumbent stationary.
I think that many people who have comfort problems with the seats on
upright bikes are not familiar with the different adjustments that they
can make to their saddles. Also everyone's anatomy is different and no
one saddle will be comfortable for everyone. It's difficult to find the
most comfortable saddle.
I tried more than a dozen different seats before I rode a Brooks Pro and
decided that it was the seat for me. That was over 30 years ago. The
light padding on the early Avocet gel seats was great for off road but
not for long distance riding.
I use an angle gage and a meter stick to adjust my saddles so that they
start off at the same position on all 5 of my road bikes. Over a period
of weeks I may need to make a minor adjustment of 1/2° in the nose angle
or 1/8" in the height, more for pressure on my hands than my butt.
If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.
Chas.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
* * Chas wrote:
>
> Thoughts on recumbent bikes:
>
> Of the 10 or so recumbent riders I've talked to about their bikes over
> the years, most of them rode these because of some physical problem, the
> others were interestingly eccentric. Both reasons are valid
> justifications.
>
> I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I found
This would have made the recumbent bicycle a pre-WW2 antique or a
homebuilt - not exactly relevant to the better designs currently
available.
Recumbent balance at lower speeds is different from an upright, since
the steering forces are lighter and less upper body moment is used, but
it is no more difficult with sufficient practice.
I find starting out on a recumbent easier than an upright, since the
recumbent starts out much nearer to vertical and there is no need to
shift one's body backward, reducing the main actions required from 4 to
2. (The other 2 are steering for balance and bringing the down foot to
the pedal).
> If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.
I meet plenty of upright riders that show unsolicited hostility simply
because I am riding a recumbent bicycle. (And no, I have not tried to
evangelize the benefits of recumbents to them, asked to join their
rotating paceline, asked to draft, etc.)
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > ...
> > If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> > than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> > crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> > got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
> >
> > Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> > upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> > problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> > and no saddle can fix that.
>
> here we go again..why don't you go find another -bent specific NG to
> wallow in?
Is this rec.bicycles.that.peter.chisholm.approves.of.tech?
At what popularity level does something have to be for it to be proper
to be discussed on rec.bicycles.tech? Are high wheel ("penny-farthing")
bicycles an acceptable subject, since they appear to be rarer than
recumbents? What about folding uprights? Downhill MTB? Bike for rider's
with a mass greater than 150 kg?
Does the "promotional" aspect bother you? Should we ban discussing the
advantages of "well built conventional wheels" over "boutique" wheels?
Or the "superiority" of components made by an Italian manufacturer over
than of a Japanese manufacturer?
> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
> a saddle sore or anything else like that.
Do you represent 100% of the healthy human population? Are those not up
to your superior standard not worthy of riding in comfort?
> Have you ever had irritation
> from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
> your 'bent??
What are you talking about?
> > The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
> > Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
> > the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> > materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>
> Let me knwo when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fronge' of bicycles.
What is a 'lunatic fronge' (sic)?
Nice to see your acceptance of non-conformity in others (not).
> > Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
> > saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> > recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> > then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> > bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> > lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
>
> I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
> them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
> goes.
With most bike shop employees and owners having close-minded attitudes
like Mr. Chisholm's, the recumbents would not sell even if they were
superior in every objective and subjective way.
Did a recumbent rider piss in your beer, or do recumbent offend you for
some other reason?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> ...
>>> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats
>>> are more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts.
>>> Also the crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are
>>> nice too. I've got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>>> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes... why is it
>>> that upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass
>>> pain problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are
>>> simply poor, and no saddle can fix that.
>> here we go again... why don't you go find another -bent specific NG
>> to wallow in?
> Is this rec.bicycles.that.peter.chisholm.approves.of.tech?
> At what popularity level does something have to be for it to be
> proper to be discussed on rec.bicycles.tech? Are high wheel
> ("penny-farthing") bicycles an acceptable subject, since they appear
> to be rarer than recumbents? What about folding uprights? Downhill
> MTB? Bike for rider's with a mass greater than 150 kg?
I find odd that you believe that your choice of bicycle needs to be
pushed at others repeatedly by you and those who believe that all
other bicyclists are fools for sitting on an conventional upright
bicycle instead of some variety of back resting type.
> Does the "promotional" aspect bother you? Should we ban discussing
> the advantages of "well built conventional wheels" over "boutique"
> wheels? Or the "superiority" of components made by an Italian
> manufacturer over than of a Japanese manufacturer?
You don't seem to recognize the extreme minority of recumbent two
wheelers in a world of bicycling, here and in countries where human
powered cycles are widely used. In fact, where bicycles and their
derivatives are most widely used, recumbents are as good as
non-existent.
>> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
>> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.
Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
issue.
> Do you represent 100% of the healthy human population? Are those
> not up to your superior standard not worthy of riding in comfort?
You are assuming that they aren't riding in comfort. Consider
millions of riders who have no other vehicle.
>> Have you ever had irritation from your skin pushing through on the
>> straps of the lawn chair you have on your 'bent?
> What are you talking about?
>>> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than
>>> the Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle
>>> frame is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the
>>> least amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>> Let me know when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
>> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fringe' of bicycles.
> What is a 'lunatic fringe'?
> Nice to see your acceptance of non-conformity in others (not).
The lunacy resides with those who keep telling others how misguided
they are in riding conventional bicycles. Just take your beliefs and
post them in wreck.recumbent and be done with it. This is not a
religious matter although I see much faith with the minority sect.
>>> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
>>> with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not
>>> ride a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as
>>> well"... So then, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat
>>> post on upright bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain,
>>> and have a lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
>> I have a idea also, go to Taiwan, make these cheaper, and try to
>> sell them to bike shops throughout the US, Europe and Asia, let me
>> know how it goes.
> With most bike shop employees and owners having close-minded
> attitudes like Mr. Chisholm's, the recumbents would not sell even if
> they were superior in every objective and subjective way.
Ooh! Now its other peoples fault that recumbents are
under-represented on the road. Are you telling me that there are no
recumbentists capable of operating a bicycle shop? Locally we have a
bicycle shop that allots much space to recumbents, yet sales are
minuscule. It's not like you can't buy a recumbent in this are, it's
more like there aren't many interested customers.
> Did a recumbent rider piss in your beer, or do recumbent offend you
> for some other reason?
You are trying hard to ignore that your spiel is old as the hills and
we've heard it too often. Just keep your personal matters to yourself
and most of us will feel better about it.
Jobst Brandt
JeffWills
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
<snip>
>
> >> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
> >> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.
>
> Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
> don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
> riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
> issue.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Watch the levels of reference, Jobst- that was Peter telling everyone
he doesn't suffer from "sleepy winkie", not Tom.
FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
all, for different reasons.
Jeff
Michael Press
<1161670854.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ever consider that the population of regular upright riders may well
> consist of persons who have a greater than normal tolerance for sitting
> on an upright saddle?
No, I have not. I am conceive of the state of affairs
quite otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for
sitting. Those who insist on this paradigm quit or buy
a recumbent. Second, riders do not tolerate their
saddle; they get stronger and consequently put less
weight on the saddle. Third, almost every rider finds a
saddle that suits them very well. I have.
You see many questions about saddles, and hear many
reports of people uncomfortable on their bicycle in
this technical newsgroup. Seriously, is this a good
premise for inferring universal pain on upright
bicycles?
> If there are people who find uprights
> uncomfortable despite "proper fit", would you rather they not take up
> cycling? Then there are the "newbie's" who may well give up on
> cycling when they try it and find it initially uncomfortable - is that
> a good thing?
People new to the sport typically associate with people
who have adapted, learn their methods, get stronger,
get comfortable.
--
Michael Press
* * Chas
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1161739675.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts on recumbent bikes:
> > I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I
found
> > it difficult to balance....
>
> This would have made the recumbent bicycle a pre-WW2 antique or a
> homebuilt - not exactly relevant to the better designs currently
> available.
>
improved over time.
<snip>
> > If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.
>
> I meet plenty of upright riders that show unsolicited hostility simply
> because I am riding a recumbent bicycle. (And no, I have not tried to
> evangelize the benefits of recumbents to them, asked to join their
> rotating paceline, asked to draft, etc.)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
Over the past 35 years I've found a lot of competitive cyclists who
display unsolicited hostility towards almost everyone else no matter
what they are riding or doing. I always called it "the racer's edge"
referring to an old deodorant ad!
This thread certainly got side tracked. I wanted to share my positive
experiences with a saddle that I like with others who have been writing
about Brooks Pro saddles.
Chas.
DougC
>
> No, I have not. I am conceive of the state of affairs
> quite otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for
> sitting. Those who insist on this paradigm quit or buy
> a recumbent.
-You're a fool then, ignorant of the obvious. "Observed trials" bikes
often have no seats, as the seats aren't often used. When I watch people
riding any other kind of bicycle, I usually see them using the seat most
of the time. And after all--as I said (and you didn't answer)-if a seat
is not needed, then why is it present? And if a saddle isn't supposed to
be comfortable, then why do most upright saddle companies claim benefits
of comfort in their advertising?
> Second, riders do not tolerate their
> saddle; they get stronger and consequently put less
> weight on the saddle.
So,,, in the end,,,, they tolerate it being painful.....
Third, almost every rider finds a
> saddle that suits them very well. I have.
>
-Yes--it is true that "all the people who ride a lot, are tolerant of
saddle pain". They would need to be. What about all the bicycles that
sit in people's garages unused, their tires going flat from dry-rot? Do
you think people aren't riding those bicycles because they're "too
comfortable"?
> You see many questions about saddles, and hear many
> reports of people uncomfortable on their bicycle in
> this technical newsgroup. Seriously, is this a good
> premise for inferring universal pain on upright
> bicycles?
>
-Yes it is. Why is it that with cars, with motorcycles, with boats, with
snowmobiles, generally with recumbent bicycles, and with the Rans
crank-forwards as well--with NO other vehicle is it considered necessary
to present a "wall of seats" for buyers to try, in the hopes that they
will find one comfortable enough that they'll actually pay for the
[vehicle] and take it home? Most other vehicles can arrive at one seat
that is more than comfortable enough for most of the vast population of
humanity. It is only upright bicycles that present this irrationality.
-And I didn't even ask about padded shorts yet....
> People new to the sport typically associate with people
> who have adapted, learn their methods, get stronger,
> get comfortable.
>
Yes but what you dscripe as "partly standing" is not "getting
comfortable",,,, it is only becoming tolerant of a poor design.
The mainstream "sport" of bicycle racing decided to ignore alternate
possibilities a very-long time ago, and continues to ignore them to this
day.
[end]
Qui si parla Campagnolo
yer the one that mentioned the 'cheapest' solution. I have always said
that 'bents are the bicycle version of a wheelchair, a way for those
who for some physical(or mental) reason can't ride an upright. OBW-do a
google search and see what my 'name' really means in Italian.
Sorry, a parlee or merckx isn't the cheapest solution..but one of the
best. Love your 'bent, good for you, remain on the fringe.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Read above, Jobst said it better than me...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
But, but, but, it's the pisspoor design of the upright and no bicycle
saddle design is going to fix that!!!
Victor Kan
> I have always said
> that 'bents are the bicycle version of a wheelchair, a way for those
> who for some physical(or mental) reason can't ride an upright.
This is kind of true for me.
I have physical limitations that prevent me from riding in a max. aero
position (for me) on my DF bike for extended periods. On my recumbent,
I'm in a max. aero position (for me) constantly, so I end up riding
faster with less effort over the same routes than I can on my DF bike.
If I did nothing but ride up steep hills, this wouldn't matter, but then
I don't just ride up steep hills.
At the power output end of things, I can sprint faster and reach a
higher maximum speed on my DF, but with the lower power requirement of
the constant aero position, I can sustain higher speeds over longer
distances/times on the recumbent.
ob.on-topic: I haven't tried a Brooks Pro but would probably get it or
a B17 Narrow if I hadn't found a nice fit on a San Marco Rolls, as well
as the Vetta Race Lite (about as wide as the Rolls in back, narrower up
front, more rounded and firmer at the back than the flatter Rolls).
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
Tim McNamara
DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > No, I have not. I am conceive of the state of affairs quite
> > otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for sitting. Those who
> > insist on this paradigm quit or buy a recumbent.
>
> You're a fool then, ignorant of the obvious. "Observed trials" bikes
> often have no seats, as the seats aren't often used. When I watch
> people riding any other kind of bicycle, I usually see them using the
> seat most of the time. And after all--as I said (and you didn't
> answer)-if a seat is not needed, then why is it present? And if a
> saddle isn't supposed to be comfortable, then why do most upright
> saddle companies claim benefits of comfort in their advertising?
You misunderstood. A saddle isn't for sitting. It's for riding.
sitting is passive, riding is active. A bicycle saddle is designed to
provide enough support while not getting in your way while riding.
> > Second, riders do not tolerate their saddle; they get stronger and
> > consequently put less weight on the saddle.
>
> So,,, in the end,,,, they tolerate it being painful.....
No. As I and others have said already, we do not experience pain from
riding our bikes. Thus we have no need to resort to the kludges that
are recumbents, most of which look like they were designed by Rube
Goldberg.
> > Third, almost every rider finds a saddle that suits them very well.
> > I have.
> >
> -Yes--it is true that "all the people who ride a lot, are tolerant of
> saddle pain". They would need to be. What about all the bicycles that
> sit in people's garages unused, their tires going flat from dry-rot?
> Do you think people aren't riding those bicycles because they're "too
> comfortable"?
In most cases, the bikes are going unused because they were bought with
good intentions but other life commitments and- in many cases- laziness
keep them off their bikes. I know of a number of recumbents also
sitting in garages being unused for those same reasons.
Your claim that "all the people who ride a lot are tolerant of saddle
pain" is just bullshit. I ride a lot (6,000 to 7,000 miles most years)
and have no issues with saddle pain (with one exception noted below). I
use either Brooks Team Pros or Lepper Voyageur saddles and find them
very comfortable.
The exception is on long brevets (400, 600, 1000 and 1200 km). I get
some saddle soreness then. However, listening to the gripes of
recumbent riders during those events, I know that I am not alone.
> > You see many questions about saddles, and hear many reports of
> > people uncomfortable on their bicycle in this technical newsgroup.
> > Seriously, is this a good premise for inferring universal pain on
> > upright bicycles?
> >
> Yes it is.
No, it's not. Perhaps you can't figure out why on your own and that's
why you've come to the erroneous conclusion that all standard bicycles
are painful to ride. If you need an explanation of why you're wrong,
let us know. But you ought to be able to figure it out for yourself.
> > People new to the sport typically associate with people who have
> > adapted, learn their methods, get stronger, get comfortable.
> >
> Yes but what you dscripe as "partly standing" is not "getting
> comfortable",,,, it is only becoming tolerant of a poor design.
>
> The mainstream "sport" of bicycle racing decided to ignore alternate
> possibilities a very-long time ago, and continues to ignore them to
> this day. [end]
What does bicycle racing have to do with it? Bicycle racing is about
0.0002% of the cycling population. Recumbent zealots love to play the
bike racing card, even though it has basically nothing to do with
anything.
It's more telling that recumbents have not taken over in the general
public. The main reason is simple- recumbents are a necessary solution
for only a small fraction of people who can't tolerate a normal bike.
The other reason is also simple- you can't buy a $300 recumbent.
One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they are
overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women on
recumbents and virtually no young, fit people. Locally we have some
very strong recumbent evangelists such as Calhoun Cycles (a shop of
almost all recumbents) and Terry Osell who has built custom recumbents
for decades. Recumbents are pretty visible here- I see someone riding
one most days in the summer. I see none in the winter on the ice and
snow, whereas I see hundreds of cyclists all winter long.
Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned by the
U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They are illegal
in races sanctioned by the international cycling body, the UCI, and in
races that conform to UCI rules. I've never seen a recumbent in a race
locally, mainly because the disadvantage when climbing would render them
noncompetitive.
The other interesting thing here is your divisive attitude. I wonder
what end that serves? Are you making yourself feel superior and
justified in your fringe element lifestyle choice to ride a recumbent?
You are certainly not approaching the matter in a way that is going to
produce converts.
I think it's great that people ride recumbents. If it gets them out on
their bikes and they wouldn't ride otherwise, more power to them. I
know two dedicated cyclists that have switched to recumbents due to
cervical arthritis, it's kept them on the road. I think that's great
too. It's good to have options. If a recumbent is a superior choice
for you, then ride and and tailwinds to ya.
Tim McNamara
"* * Chas" <verkt...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> Over the past 35 years I've found a lot of competitive cyclists who
> display unsolicited hostility towards almost everyone else no matter
> what they are riding or doing.
There evidence that this sort of thing is actually due to prenatal
testosterone levels. There is some very interesting research into this.
People with high prenatal testosterone tend to develop very efficient
cardiopulmonary systems and tend to be athletic. They also tend to have
very strong competitive natures. As a result you'll find a lot of those
folks in professional and amateur sports. More of our personalities are
governed biologically than we realize.
* * Chas
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-434936....@news.iphouse.com...
Well put.
The bottom line is: for those folks who like or need the support of the
wide flat rear of Brooks Pros and B17s, WTB has a number of models with
their "whale tail" design.
Are they ever going to break in or last as long as a good leather
saddle? No, but they are about 1/2 the price of a Brooks Pro and some
folk's budgets are hard pressed to chunk out $100+ USD for a bike seat.
As I said above, I have 4 Brooks Pros and I'll keep riding them.
Chas.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> >> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
>> >> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.
>> Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
>> don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
>> riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
>> issue.
> Watch the levels of reference, Jobst- that was Peter telling everyone
> he doesn't suffer from "sleepy winkie", not Tom.
Watch the >'s and you'll notice the attribution is correct, and not
Tom's. Tom's comments have > before them, not >>.
> FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
> all, for different reasons.
That's to bad, I guess.
Jobst Brandt
Fred
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
...
>
>yer the one that mentioned the 'cheapest' solution. I have always said
>that 'bents are the bicycle version of a wheelchair, a way for those
>who for some physical(or mental) reason can't ride an upright. OBW-do a
>google search and see what my 'name' really means in Italian.
On an upright tandem I block the view for my wife on the back. With a
recumbent tandem she has a good view.
As for comfort the recumbent is slightly more comfy than a good
upright saddle, at least for me. It is much better for the wife.
Leave this one to the individual rider.
>Sorry, a parlee or merckx isn't the cheapest solution..but one of the
>best. Love your 'bent, good for you, remain on the fringe.
It's fun out there...
Michael Press
DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > No, I have not. I conceive of the state of affairs
> > quite otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for
> > sitting. Those who insist on this paradigm quit or buy
> > a recumbent.
>
> "Observed trials" bikes
> often have no seats, as the seats aren't often used. When I watch people
> riding any other kind of bicycle, I usually see them using the seat most
> of the time. And after all--as I said (and you didn't answer)-if a seat
> is not needed, then why is it present? And if a saddle isn't supposed to
> be comfortable, then why do most upright saddle companies claim benefits
> of comfort in their advertising?
An upright bicycle has a saddle, not a seat. It is not
meant for sitting.
Do you mean to confound me with observed advertising
practice?
> > Second, riders do not tolerate their
> > saddle; they get stronger and consequently put less
> > weight on the saddle.
> So,,, in the end,,,, they tolerate it being painful.....
Nobody tolerates a painful bicycle.
> Third, almost every rider finds a
> > saddle that suits them very well. I have.
> >
> -Yes--it is true that "all the people who ride a lot, are tolerant of
> saddle pain". They would need to be. What about all the bicycles that
> sit in people's garages unused, their tires going flat from dry-rot? Do
> you think people aren't riding those bicycles because they're "too
> comfortable"?
>
> > You see many questions about saddles, and hear many
> > reports of people uncomfortable on their bicycle in
> > this technical newsgroup. Seriously, is this a good
> > premise for inferring universal pain on upright
> > bicycles?
> >
> -Yes it is.
Argumentum Monty Python. No, it is not. People here are
comfortable on their upright bicycle. The apparent
large volume of questions about fitting a saddle is
because this is where people come to ask their
questions.
> Why is it that with cars, with motorcycles, with boats, with
> snowmobiles, generally with recumbent bicycles, and with the Rans
> crank-forwards as well--with NO other vehicle is it considered necessary
Then you are saying that a bicycle is different from an
automobile?
> to present a "wall of seats" for buyers to try, in the hopes that they
> will find one comfortable enough that they'll actually pay for the
> [vehicle] and take it home?
They are not seats.
> Most other vehicles can arrive at one seat
> that is more than comfortable enough for most of the vast population of
> humanity.
> It is only upright bicycles that present this irrationality.
> -And I didn't even ask about padded shorts yet....
That's a mercy, since we are discussing saddles.
> > People new to the sport typically associate with people
> > who have adapted, learn their methods, get stronger,
> > get comfortable.
> >
> Yes but what you dscripe as "partly standing" is not "getting
> comfortable",,,, it is only becoming tolerant of a poor design.
You have not done it, so you are not qualified to
assert this.
--
Michael Press
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they are
> overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women on
I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and invitational
rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are only slightly
more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.
> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned by the
> U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They are illegal
> in races sanctioned by the international cycling body, the UCI, and in
> races that conform to UCI rules....
My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI rules
in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights, Moultons,
etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the current rules by
the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents longer than 2 meters
have always been forbidden.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?
I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> ... One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they
>> are overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women
>> on recumbents...
> I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and
> invitational rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are
> only slightly more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.
You're riding in the wrong area apparently. Many women ride in the
Santa Cruz to San Mateo region where there are many fine mountain
roads.
>> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned
>> by the U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They
>> are illegal in races sanctioned by the international cycling body,
>> the UCI, and in races that conform to UCI rules....
> My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI
> rules in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights,
> Moultons, etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the
> current rules by the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents
> longer than 2 meters have always been forbidden.
It's about time, but then that might be called un-American. There is
good reason to specify the type of two wheeled vehicle used in
competition, no different than defining the size of golf, tennis and
baseball balls as well as many other dimensions of a sport. You can
ride anything you want elsewhere as many people do, although enough
folks want to ride what the "racers" use.
What would be gained in leaving the choice of two wheeled vehicle up
to competitors? Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold
be made more expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage.
Do you have any preference for whether streamlines recumbents should
be allowed in time trials?
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> ...OBW-do a Google search and see what my 'name' really means in
>> Italian....
> What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?
> I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.
You didn't Google well enough. A Campagnolo is a Countryman.
Jobst Brandt
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >>> ...
> >>> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats
> >>> are more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts.
> >>> Also the crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are
> >>> nice too. I've got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> >>> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes... why is it
> >>> that upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass
> >>> pain problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are
> >>> simply poor, and no saddle can fix that.
>
> >> here we go again... why don't you go find another -bent specific NG
> >> to wallow in?
>
> > Is this rec.bicycles.that.peter.chisholm.approves.of.tech?
>
> > At what popularity level does something have to be for it to be
> > proper to be discussed on rec.bicycles.tech? Are high wheel
> > ("penny-farthing") bicycles an acceptable subject, since they appear
> > to be rarer than recumbents? What about folding uprights? Downhill
> > MTB? Bike for rider's with a mass greater than 150 kg?
>
> I find odd that you believe that your choice of bicycle needs to be
> pushed at others repeatedly by you and those who believe that all
> other bicyclists are fools for sitting on an conventional upright
> bicycle instead of some variety of back resting type.
Putting words in my mouth? Where did I ever state that bicyclists are
fools for riding conventional uprights? Citation please!
Where have I ever seriously stated that all upright cyclists should
convert to recumbents? Citation please!
> > Does the "promotional" aspect bother you? Should we ban discussing
> > the advantages of "well built conventional wheels" over "boutique"
> > wheels? Or the "superiority" of components made by an Italian
> > manufacturer over than of a Japanese manufacturer?
>
> You don't seem to recognize the extreme minority of recumbent two
> wheelers in a world of bicycling, here and in countries where human
> powered cycles are widely used. In fact, where bicycles and their
> derivatives are most widely used, recumbents are as good as
> non-existent.
More putting words into my mouth. Where have I ever stated or implied
that recumbents are not a minority (in fact the best estimates are a
little less than 1% of LBS bicycles sales in the US)? Citation please!
>From the rec.bicycles.tech charter: "rec.bicycles.tech: Techniques of
engineering, construction, maintenance and repair of bicycles and
ancillary equipment. Not for products or services offered or wanted --
see rec.bicycles.marketplace."
Note that it says "bicycles", not "upright bicycles" or "upright
bicycles only".
So why do some get to upset at the mere mention of a recumbent bicycle
when the post fits the rec.bicycles.tech charter guidelines?
> >> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
> >> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.
>
> Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
> don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
> riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
> issue.
>
> > Do you represent 100% of the healthy human population? Are those
> > not up to your superior standard not worthy of riding in comfort?
>
> You are assuming that they aren't riding in comfort. Consider
> millions of riders who have no other vehicle.
Mostly by economic necessity. Look how the popularity of bicycles for
transportation has dropped in ever society where personal motor
vehicles have become affordable to the average person.
Anyhow, where is the study that shows that most of those millions ride
in comfort? How long are their rides on average?
> >> Have you ever had irritation from your skin pushing through on the
> >> straps of the lawn chair you have on your 'bent?
>
> > What are you talking about?
>
> >>> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than
> >>> the Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle
> >>> frame is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the
> >>> least amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>
> >> Let me know when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
> >> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fringe' of bicycles.
>
> > What is a 'lunatic fringe'?
What was actually written is below:
-----
> Let me knwo when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fronge' of bicycles. [Peter Chisholm]
What is a 'lunatic fronge' (sic)? [Tom Sherman]
-----
See
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2ea6b7e278def5e7?dmode=source>.
If you are going to change things in quoted material, put the changes
in brackets, which is the accepted practice. DO NOT MAKE IT APPEAR THAT
PEOPLE WROTE SOMETHING THEY DID NOT!
> > Nice to see your acceptance of non-conformity in others (not).
>
> The lunacy resides with those who keep telling others how misguided
> they are in riding conventional bicycles. Just take your beliefs and
> post them in wreck.recumbent and be done with it. This is not a
> religious matter although I see much faith with the minority sect.
Where is it stated that rec.bicycles.tech is SOLELY the province of
UPRIGHT BICYCLES? CITATION PLEASE!
> >>> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
> >>> with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not
> >>> ride a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as
> >>> well"... So then, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat
> >>> post on upright bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain,
> >>> and have a lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
>
> >> I have a idea also, go to Taiwan, make these cheaper, and try to
> >> sell them to bike shops throughout the US, Europe and Asia, let me
> >> know how it goes.
>
> > With most bike shop employees and owners having close-minded
> > attitudes like Mr. Chisholm's, the recumbents would not sell even if
> > they were superior in every objective and subjective way.
>
> Ooh! Now its other peoples fault that recumbents are
> under-represented on the road. Are you telling me that there are no
> recumbentists capable of operating a bicycle shop? Locally we have a
> bicycle shop that allots much space to recumbents, yet sales are
> minuscule. It's not like you can't buy a recumbent in this are, it's
> more like there aren't many interested customers.
And with attitudes from the "experts" such as that exhibited by Peter
Chisholm and Jobst Brandt, no wonder.
I always thought that Sheldon Brown provided a fair treatment of
recumbents on his website:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html#recumbent>. Is Sheldon's
glossary entry incorrect?
> > Did a recumbent rider piss in your beer, or do recumbent offend you
> > for some other reason?
>
> You are trying hard to ignore that your spiel is old as the hills and
> we've heard it too often. Just keep your personal matters to yourself
> and most of us will feel better about it.
Oh, so only subjects of interest to Jobst Brandt are now allowed on
rec.bicycles.tech? Did the group become moderated with Mr. Brandt as
moderator?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>
> >> ... One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they
> >> are overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women
> >> on recumbents...
>
> > I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and
> > invitational rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are
> > only slightly more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.
>
> You're riding in the wrong area apparently. Many women ride in the
> Santa Cruz to San Mateo region where there are many fine mountain
> roads.
In the Chicagoland area (population ca. 10 million), this is certainly
not the case.
When I had the time to be in a recreational cycling club, the regular
ridership was approximately 90% male, and over half the regular women
were there with the male "significant other".
> >> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned
> >> by the U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They
> >> are illegal in races sanctioned by the international cycling body,
> >> the UCI, and in races that conform to UCI rules....
>
> > My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI
> > rules in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights,
> > Moultons, etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the
> > current rules by the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents
> > longer than 2 meters have always been forbidden.
>
> It's about time, but then that might be called un-American. There is
> good reason to specify the type of two wheeled vehicle used in
> competition, no different than defining the size of golf, tennis and
> baseball balls as well as many other dimensions of a sport. You can
> ride anything you want elsewhere as many people do, although enough
> folks want to ride what the "racers" use.
>
> What would be gained in leaving the choice of two wheeled vehicle up
> to competitors?
It would settle the discussion on which types of bicycles are faster on
different terrain (a question that can not currently be answered).
> Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold
> be made more expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage.
> Do you have any preference for whether streamlines recumbents should
> be allowed in time trials?
There is no right or wrong answer to whether the race should be a
competition of cyclists, or a competition of cyclists AND cycles.
However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion, it
is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series where
freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied by the
rider.
At a professional level, I imagine the cost of the bicycles is only a
tiny fraction compared to what is spent on salaries, air travel, meals,
hotels, support automobiles, etc. At the amateur level, it would be an
impediment to many of the riders in their late teens to mid 20's, who
are often earning little more than minimum wage in a LBS, if different
bicycles were needed for different stages.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Yes, but Peter Chisholm claims to speak "Campagnolo", implying it is a
language. (And yes, I am aware that it is an advertising slogan, as
demonstrated by Andrew Muzi of Yellow Jersey:
<http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/SPOKEN.JPG>.)
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
* * Chas wrote:
>
> This thread certainly got side tracked. I wanted to share my positive
> experiences with a saddle that I like with others who have been writing
> about Brooks Pro saddles.
Fighting "thread drift" on Usenet is a losing battle.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Not an excuse at all for the behavior. It is simply a matter of
self-discipline to refrain from behavior that is morally incorrect,
unless the person is mentally incompetent to a point where he/she is
not responsible for his/her actions.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
I think there is no doubt that faired recumbents are faster in flat
straight courses. I think the HPVA has shown that for short course
maximum speeds as well as duration. That mountain climbing and
twisting descents are better done on conventional road racing bicycle
and that rough trail descents are best done with fat tired suspension
bicycles. I think the regulations are tuned to that.
>> Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold be made more
>> expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage. Do you
>> have any preference for whether streamlined recumbents should be
>> allowed in time trials?
> There is no right or wrong answer to whether the race should be a
> competition of cyclists, or a competition of cyclists AND cycles.
I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that class:
road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon see what
design it the one best suited to the type of race.
> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series
> where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied
> by the rider.
How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting, BB's,
hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is optimum for
top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need no steenkin
UCI for that.
> At a professional level, I imagine the cost of the bicycles is only
> a tiny fraction compared to what is spent on salaries, air travel,
> meals, hotels, support automobiles, etc. At the amateur level, it
> would be an impediment to many of the riders in their late teens to
> mid 20's, who are often earning little more than minimum wage in a
> LBS, if different bicycles were needed for different stages.
So why do that?
Jobst Brandt
JeffWills
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Jeff Wills writes:
<snip>
>
> > FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
> > all, for different reasons.
>
> That's to bad, I guess.
>
> Jobst Brandt
What's "too" bad? That I like bicycles? Or that I like different
bicycles for different reasons?
Jeff
JeffWills
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that class:
> road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon see what
> design it the one best suited to the type of race.
>
So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
easier to fit riders of small stature.
Jeff
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
> ...
> > it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series
> > where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied
> > by the rider.
>
> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
> that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting, BB's,
> hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is optimum for
> top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need no steenkin
What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are they
not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
innovations to be inferior to existing technology?
The argument often appears on rec.bicycles.* that recumbents would be
slower/faster/competitive /uncompetitive overall in a UCI stage race
(assuming riders of similar ability). Anyone who approaches this
question in a knowable and unbiased manner will realize that is can not
be definitively answered at the present time. For the most part all we
read are "apples and oranges" comparisons with riders of unknown and
varying abilities, performance oriented bicycles of one group versus
comfort oriented bicycles or the other group, etc.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon
>> see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.
> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
> Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
> advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
> easier to fit riders of small stature.
That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events (road
for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road stages. I
don't think you will find a team that would put their riders on small
wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain stages.
I believe we could arrive on a "standard" bicycle design much faster
than to try to outguess designers of marginally useful designs that
give benefit in certain races.
Jobst Brandt
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Apparently Jobst Brandt has a long history of being annoyed by
"recumbent evangelists" [1], and is so hyper-sensitized he can not bear
to see others discussing them on rec.bicycles.*.
[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
>>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
>>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
>>> supplied by the rider.
>> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
>> that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting,
>> BB's, hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is
>> optimum for top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need
>> no steenkin UCI for that....
> What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are
> they not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
> innovations to be inferior to existing technology?
I don't know of any that are versatile. As we know the bicycle
unassisted land speed record lies over 80mph. What do you want to do
to make that useful in UCI racing? There is no lack of technology.
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/resultsSaturday.htm
> The argument often appears on rec.bicycles.* that recumbents would
> be slower/faster/competitive /uncompetitive overall in a UCI stage
> race (assuming riders of similar ability). Anyone who approaches
> this question in a knowable and unbiased manner will realize that is
> can not be definitively answered at the present time. For the most
> part all we read are "apples and oranges" comparisons with riders of
> unknown and varying abilities, performance oriented bicycles of one
> group versus comfort oriented bicycles or the other group, etc.
We don't need to answer that question. If professional teams were to
qualify a bicycle for the season (according to a suitable regulation)
they would soon sort that out.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Jobst Brandt
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
> >>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
> >>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
> >>> supplied by the rider.
>
> >> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
> >> that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting,
> >> BB's, hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is
> >> optimum for top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need
> >> no steenkin UCI for that....
>
> > What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are
> > they not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
> > innovations to be inferior to existing technology?
>
> I don't know of any that are versatile. As we know the bicycle
> unassisted land speed record lies over 80mph. What do you want to do
The performance recumbents that are available from the major
(relatively speaking [1]) manufactures are significantly lighter,
stiffer [2] and more aerodynamic that those of 10 or even 5 years ago.
There is still significant room for improvement, unlike DF uprights
where the only real changes over the last half-century are due to
improvements in material technology. High level racing would bring the
budget for things like proper FEA and comparative testing of rider
positioning, which would further optimize the designs. Is this a bad
thing?
What is wrong for having a design that is optimized for pavement? If
one lives in a "developed" nation, almost every destination can be
reached with most of the journey on paved roads. (Not that the bikes
upright racers ride work well off pavement - I have observed a lot of
punctures simply from riding on crushed limestone surfaces).
[1] 2000+ bicycles per year.
[2] Unlike DF uprights, this can be a significant factor in recumbents.
* * Chas
Especially in RBT!
Chas.
JeffWills
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> I don't know of any that are versatile. As we know the bicycle
> unassisted land speed record lies over 80mph. What do you want to do
> to make that useful in UCI racing? There is no lack of technology.
>
Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
panniers and sleeping bags, though).
Interestingly, there's been a similar discussion on the HPV maillist. I
thought John Tetz's comments were interesting:
http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/hpv/Week-of-Mon-20061023/038596.html
He talks about having to wait for riders *one-third* his age, and
riding all winter when the racers have put away their bikes. *That's*
"versatile".
Jeff
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are
>>>> those that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes,
>>>> shifting, BB's, hubs, rims and the like. We already know what
>>>> design is optimum for top speeds and for human powered flight.
>>>> We don't need no steenkin UCI for that....
>>> What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are
>>> they not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
>>> innovations to be inferior to existing technology?
>> I don't know of any that are versatile. As we know the bicycle
>> unassisted land speed record lies over 80mph. What do you want to
>> do to make that useful in UCI racing? There is no lack of
>> technology....
> The performance recumbents that are available from the major
> (relatively speaking [1]) manufactures are significantly lighter,
> stiffer [2] and more aerodynamic that those of 10 or even 5 years
> ago. There is still significant room for improvement, unlike DF
> uprights where the only real changes over the last half-century are
> due to improvements in material technology. High level racing would
> bring the budget for things like proper FEA and comparative testing
> of rider positioning, which would further optimize the designs. Is
> this a bad thing?
What needs to be improved in conventional bicycle frames? I see only
component reliability. We've seen improvements in seat posts, brakes,
threadless steer tubes, pedals, BB's and other small changes. What is
not getting the attention you would like to see?
> What is wrong for having a design that is optimized for pavement?
> If one lives in a "developed" nation, almost every destination can
> be reached with most of the journey on paved roads.
We have that already.
> (Not that the bikes upright racers ride work well off pavement - I
> have observed a lot of punctures simply from riding on crushed
> limestone surfaces).
I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
embedded in the surface of car tires.
> [1] 2000+ bicycles per year.
> [2] Unlike DF uprights, this can be a significant factor in recumbents.
I take it you think more people would choose recliners if they were
better streamlined. Is that what you means?
Jobst Brandt
Helmut Springer
> There is still significant room for improvement, unlike DF
> uprights where the only real changes over the last half-century
> are due to improvements in material technology. High level racing
> would bring the budget for things like proper FEA and comparative
> testing of rider positioning, which would further optimize the
> designs. Is this a bad thing?
It would bring designes optimized for highly trained athlets
competing in racing events. Not much gain for every day usage as
it's popular here (Europe), where recumbent design seems to be
advancing driven mostly by targeting every day riders (at least the
competing community is largely ignored outside of its followers).
For racing the crows seems to prefer seeing the rider's efforts, the
competition, the physical aspects...not to be hidden or limited.
Watching fully faired HPVs is like watching low power cars...
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer
carl...@comcast.net
[snip]
> I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
> on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
> in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
> that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
> embedded in the surface of car tires.
Dear Jobst,
Er, goatheads don't puncture car or motorcycle tires, but I hear rumors
that they can cause problems for bicycles.
Since you insist that anything outside your experience can't exist,
would you please tell us what your experience is?
That is, how many flat bicycle tires have you had in the last year or
ten thousand miles?
In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average of a
flat tire every sixty miles.
As I recall, we've been through this before. Confronted with pictures,
you insisted that you could see no goatheads. Confronted with
close-ups, you changed your tune to asking why I ride a bicycle on a
path that doesn't suit your theories.
For general amusement, here's the thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/a6cbc6763342204c/37608e9e4b7ce770#37608e9e4b7ce770
or http://tinyurl.com/m5ggx
If you're as authoritative about flints as you were about goatheads,
this would be a good time to fall silent, but it really would be
interesting to know how many flats your experience is based on.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
* * Chas
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161845928.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Dear Jobst,
>
> Er, goatheads don't puncture car or motorcycle tires, but I hear
rumors
> that they can cause problems for bicycles.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>
We had some Texas sized goatheads down in NM. I recall someone with
extremely bald car tires with the cords showing through getting a flat
from one of these killers.
My first exposure to goatheads happened right after I arrived in NM. I
walked barefoot across what passed for a lawn in Albuquerque. I picked
up something like 27 goatheads in my bare feet!
Chas.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Tom Sherman writes:
>
>>>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
>>>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
>>>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
>>>> supplied by the rider.
>
>>> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
>>> that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting,
>>> BB's, hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is
>>> optimum for top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need
>>> no steenkin UCI for that....
>
>> What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are
>> they not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
>> innovations to be inferior to existing technology?
>
>I don't know of any that are versatile.
There is one -- the small clip-on aero bar, like the Cinelli Spinacci.
Allows for faster riding in some circumstances and also more relaxed
riding than riding the drops -- versatile, effective and cheap. A
great item that's banned in mass-start racing now.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
>that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
>local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
>panniers and sleeping bags, though).
Who? Are any results online?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average of a
>flat tire every sixty miles.
Wow, that's a lot of flats. I guess those goatheads are really bad.
If the problem is something more mundane - like glass --, try Mr.
Tuffy. I'd expect that in 60 rides like that with Mr. Tuffy you'd get
one or zero flats -- at least that's my experience riding on roads in
and around New York City, which have a fair amount of glass and other
debris on the roads. Though maybe they can't beat goatheads.
JeffWills
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2006 21:46:06 -0700, "JeffWills" <jwi...@pacifier.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
> >that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
> >local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
> >panniers and sleeping bags, though).
>
> Who? Are any results online?
Nothing from the club time trials, but they were in the low-23-minute
range for the 10-mile time trial, IIRC. Here's their tale of
cross-country wandering: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/ER2005
Note that the average age of this group was about 50.
Jeff
Pat Lamb
> Jeff Wills writes:
>
>>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon
>>> see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.
>
>> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
>> Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
>> advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
>> easier to fit riders of small stature.
>
> That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events (road
> for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road stages. I
> don't think you will find a team that would put their riders on small
> wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain stages.
I don't see the point for this proposed requirement. Right now, I think
most teams have separate bikes for TTs and road stages, the European
racers have front suspension bikes for cobblestones, and some of the
better funded teams have special bikes for climbing stages. So why
would it be appropriate to make an alternative design mandatory for ALL
stages?
Pat
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
>> on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
>> in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
>> that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
>> embedded in the surface of car tires.
> Er, goatheads don't puncture car or motorcycle tires, but I hear
> rumors that they can cause problems for bicycles.
Ah yes, but I find them in tires of cars that pulled off the road at
locations where the stuff grows. That they break off and leave only
their thorn once back on the road is the same as for bicyclists,
except that the thorn is too short to reach the air chamber... and is
hard to see, being a tiny tan colored pip in the huge tire.
> Since you insist that anything outside your experience can't exist,
> would you please tell us what your experience is?
I think it's a good measure, considering riding on all sorts of
terrain with people from around the world who also have not found
them.
> That is, how many flat bicycle tires have you had in the last year
> or ten thousand miles?
About six or eight, I don't recall. Of these, three or four were
snake bites.
> In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average
> of a flat tire every sixty miles.
I wouldn't be so proud of that. You seem to be attracted to roads
that are full of thorns and know where they are. Instead of crossing
these minefields, avoid them.
> As I recall, we've been through this before. Confronted with
> pictures, you insisted that you could see no goatheads. Confronted
> with close-ups, you changed your tune to asking why I ride a bicycle
> on a path that doesn't suit your theories.
You changed the pictures!
> For general amusement, here's the thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/a6cbc6763342204c/37608e9e4b7ce770#37608e9e4b7ce770
> or http://tinyurl.com/m5ggx
> If you're as authoritative about flints as you were about goatheads,
> this would be a good time to fall silent, but it really would be
> interesting to know how many flats your experience is based on.
As I said, it is based on miles ridden on roads that you claim are
full of them. I have never had a roofing tack in my tires, but that
does not mean you cant get one, especially if you ride through an area
where they are used. I think you are turning discovery upside down.
The argument seems the same as broken spokes. Unless you break them
often, you don't know anything about spoke failure, so the current
argument goes yet I made the transition from spoke failure to
practically none with design.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>>>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>>>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would
>>>> soon see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.
>>> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton
>>> style)? Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely,
>>> might be an advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would
>>> certainly make it easier to fit riders of small stature.
>> That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events
>> (road for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road
>> stages. I don't think you will find a team that would put their
>> riders on small wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain
>> stages.
> I don't see the point for this proposed requirement. Right now, I
> think most teams have separate bikes for TT's and road stages, the
> European racers have front suspension bikes for cobblestones, and
> some of the better funded teams have special bikes for climbing
> stages. So why would it be appropriate to make an alternative
> design mandatory for ALL stages?
As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
interfere with athletic competition. The best all around design would
be quickly found and it would probably be much the same for all teams.
Jobst Brandt
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?
>
> I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.
>
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Somebody in this silly thread mentioned my 'name' with Campagnolo in
it, I'm sure you know what I mean, just being typically diffucult.
Joe Riel
> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> interfere with athletic competition. The best all around design would
> be quickly found and it would probably be much the same for all teams.
Beware the unintended consequences. A likely outcome is that teams
would choose to be noncompetitive in some races, or stages, in order
to improve their chances in others. This would not necessarily lead
to a common design.
--
Joe Riel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
So your authoritative position that all those riders who mention
flints as a problem is based on not having had such a problem yourself
on 6-8 flats per year or 10,000 miles.
Sounds like less than 250 flats in 300,000 miles, not a very
impressive sample.
Your argument about spokes is illogical.
You wrote about breaking spokes often before something changed (either
your spoke stretching or the durability of spokes that you mention
changed dramatically in 10 years).
So you never claimed that spoke failure was a myth, which is what
you're claiming about flints.
As for changing the pictures, I simply took more, with closeups. It's
pathetic to argue first that there were no goatheads and then switch
to saying that goathead-infested paths where I live should be avoided
in order not to contradict your theories about how easily goatheads
can be avoided.
(Did you think that I was just imagining the goatheads?)
You can do better than that.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
DougC
>
>> I don't see the point for this proposed requirement. Right now, I
>> think most teams have separate bikes for TT's and road stages, the
>> European racers have front suspension bikes for cobblestones, and
>> some of the better funded teams have special bikes for climbing
>> stages. So why would it be appropriate to make an alternative
>> design mandatory for ALL stages?
>
> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
already excluded recumbents. It's not that difficult to write technical
rules that would allow all bicycles; something along the lines of "one
rider, exclusively human powered, with no parts solely for aerodynamic
benefit" would work. ANYTHING else goes. Would that be simpler or more
complicated than the rules they have now?
> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> interfere with athletic competition. The best all around design would
> be quickly found and it would probably be much the same for all teams.
>
The big teams can spend huge sums of money on their setups that
"ordinary people" cannot afford. On an economic basis, the playing field
is /somewhat/ uneven already.
--------
-In one way, allowing recumbents WOULD level the playing field, at least
for the first couple years. The big corporate teams that dominate it now
would have to start over from scratch, evaluating new choices and
obtaining new bikes (if they chose).
[end]
carl...@comcast.net
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On 25 Oct 2006 23:58:48 -0700, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average of a
>>flat tire every sixty miles.
>
>Wow, that's a lot of flats. I guess those goatheads are really bad.
>If the problem is something more mundane - like glass --, try Mr.
>Tuffy. I'd expect that in 60 rides like that with Mr. Tuffy you'd get
>one or zero flats -- at least that's my experience riding on roads in
>and around New York City, which have a fair amount of glass and other
>debris on the roads. Though maybe they can't beat goatheads.
Dear John,
It's just an annoying recent spate of bad luck.
I was having much better luck earlier in the year and foolishly
imagined that things were somehow improving.
It really illustrates nothing more than regional variation. I just
happen to live in an area where the soil and climate encourage
puncture vine.
But despite my pathetic whimpering, I can easily point to a place with
far worse goathead trouble. If I turned north at the dam and rode up
the bluffs to Pueblo West, I'd want a mountain bike with knobby tires,
Mr. Tuffy, thorn-resistant tubes, and Slime. Local bike shops hate to
sell touring bikes to people who live in Pueblo West, since it's
common to flat on goatheads by the end of your first block.
If I were to use Jobst's logic, I'd insist that Michelin wire flats
are a myth. I've read about Michelin wire flats on RBT, but I've never
had one, despite about 30,000 miles on a 65-mph stretch of highway.
Really, it's absurd to think that a little piece of wire (probably
lying flat) could somehow fly up and pierce a bicycle tire! We don't
hear of car tires suffering such flats. Since I've never had one and
my theory denies them, they must be myth and--
A friend borrowed a bicycle a year or two ago, rode about 20 miles on
a similar highway with far less traffic about six miles south of my
daily ride, and told me that he had an odd flat. It was, he said, just
a tiny little piece of wire that caused a slow leak.
Michelin wire, I explained, trying to look bored and experienced. Very
common.
Then I betrayed my excitement and asked if he had kept the little
wire. He hadn't, and I broke down and confessed that I'd read about
Michelin wire flats on RBT, but that I'd never seen one before.
As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
right over.
Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
Indeed, the hardest thorns to spot and dig out of the tire are the
ones broken off where the tread and sidewall meet.
So I use Slime tubes, which often get me home. When I fix a flat and
later check the tube, it's not unusual to find several sealed goathead
punctures.
For me, this is normal. But I don't recommend Slime or Mr. Tuffy or
other anti-flat measures for most riders on RBT because my impression
is that, like Jobst, most people suffer only 6-8 flats (or fewer) per
year. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that Slime tubes don't wrok
well where glass is the problem, since Slime doesn't work well against
bigger holes and slits.
My disagreement with Jobst about flints is based on:
a) finding nasty little shark-tooth-shaped rock flakes in my flat
tires opposite nasty little slits in the tubes (happily reduced since
the sand-and-gravel pit on my daily ride closed)
b) other RBT posters reporting that flint flats are a routine problem
where they live (like "Michelin wire," "flint" is a UK/European term)
c) glass chips cause flats, so it's strange to argue that rock chips
are somehow unable to do the same thing (google flint knapping, or
just cut yourself on the right kind of rock)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
* * Chas
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2gq1k29crjbhji8jn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:49:51 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Oct 2006 23:58:48 -0700, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> It really illustrates nothing more than regional variation. I just
> happen to live in an area where the soil and climate encourage
> puncture vine.
>
> But despite my pathetic whimpering, I can easily point to a place with
> far worse goathead trouble. If I turned north at the dam and rode up
> the bluffs to Pueblo West, I'd want a mountain bike with knobby tires,
> Mr. Tuffy, thorn-resistant tubes, and Slime. Local bike shops hate to
> sell touring bikes to people who live in Pueblo West, since it's
> common to flat on goatheads by the end of your first block.
>
tubes came in with goathead flats just as often or even more often than
those with standard tubes.
TP tubes are less flexable and make tires harder which gives the
goatheads better support to push through. Also, many folks who rode with
TP tubes were less experienced cyclists and tended to ride closer to the
curbs and sides of the roads. By riding further out in the trafic lane
there's less of a chance of getting a flat because cars tend to sweep
the debris off the road surface.
We rode sewups much of the time and used "sticker flickers" to help
prevent flats. In addition, we used to run at lower than the maxium
recommended tire pressures. I ran sewups at 80-85 PSI and clinchers at
75-80 PSI.
In a good (bad) goathead year, I've seen some with horns up to 8mm long!
Nothing short of steel belts are going to stop one of those suckers!
> If I were to use Jobst's logic, I'd insist that Michelin wire flats
> are a myth. I've read about Michelin wire flats on RBT, but I've never
> had one, despite about 30,000 miles on a 65-mph stretch of highway.
> Really, it's absurd to think that a little piece of wire (probably
> lying flat) could somehow fly up and pierce a bicycle tire! We don't
> hear of car tires suffering such flats. Since I've never had one and
> my theory denies them, they must be myth and--
>
I once got a flat in a clincher caused by a thin wire. It never occured
to me that it could have come from a tire casing.
>A friend borrowed a bicycle a year or two ago, rode about 20 miles on
> a similar highway with far less traffic about six miles south of my
> daily ride, and told me that he had an odd flat. It was, he said, just
> a tiny little piece of wire that caused a slow leak.
<snip>
> As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
> where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
> also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
> right over.
>
> Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
> tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
> sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
> Indeed, the hardest thorns to spot and dig out of the tire are the
> ones broken off where the tread and sidewall meet.
> My disagreement with Jobst about flints is based on:
>
Never saw too many flats from glass but that was before the 140 PSI
tires. Most of the goathead flats that I got were on the side of the
tread where the sticker flickers didn't clear them too well and they
would cause a slow leak.
> a) finding nasty little shark-tooth-shaped rock flakes in my flat
> tires opposite nasty little slits in the tubes (happily reduced since
> the sand-and-gravel pit on my daily ride closed)
>
Crushed granite chips on a tar-bound macadam (tarmac) road are pretty
sharp. I've never seen a flat bike or car tire caused by them but they
are tough on running and hiking shoes - road rash too! I could see were
running tires at higher PSI could be a problem.
Chas.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
>where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
>also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
>right over.
>
>Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
>tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
>sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
That's bad.
One thing with Mr. Tuffies is that it's possible to use oversized ones
to get a little more protection. I've used the model for, I think,
700x28-32 in 700x23 tires, and while it might not really get up the
sidewall, it protects more.
No, I don't work for the company or own stock in it.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> So your authoritative position that all those riders who mention
> flints as a problem is based on not having had such a problem
> yourself on 6-8 flats per year or 10,000 miles.
> Sounds like less than 250 flats in 300,000 miles, not a very
> impressive sample.
> Your argument about spokes is illogical.
OK, let's try another example. I haven't fallen off my bicycle while
descending mountains in years. My last crash was at low speed when I
had a fever and blacked out. To say that I don't know anything about
descending because I don't crash enough to understand the hazards in
contrast to Mr. Xyz who crashes often, doesn't prove prove he is an
expert or that I'm not.
Not having met anyone nor patched a tire with cherts is likewise
pretty good proof that these minerals, if a real hazard, are about as
scarce as hen's teeth. As I said, I ride on rough unpaved, rocky
roads and trails often. MTB riders I occasionally meet can't believe
that I and my fellow riders don't get flats all the time. It's been
that way since the days when we all rode Clement tubulars:
> You wrote about breaking spokes often before something changed
> (either your spoke stretching or the durability of spokes that you
> mention changed dramatically in 10 years).
> So you never claimed that spoke failure was a myth, which is what
> you're claiming about flints.
Don't try so hard to appear amazed. That spokes break is known and
reported here. I witness such failures and have chronicled the
process. Are you contending that I know nothing about spoke failure
because i no longer break spokes... or what is your point?
> As for changing the pictures, I simply took more, with closeups.
> It's pathetic to argue first that there were no goatheads and then
> switch to saying that goathead-infested paths where I live should be
> avoided in order not to contradict your theories about how easily
> goatheads can be avoided.
You showed a picture of a paved path with cracks and claimed that
puncture vine was all over the road when there was no greenery visible
in those cracks. Then you showed cracks that had puncture vine
clearly evident. That is deceptive. That you choose to ride on this
thorn infested path, knowing what you do about the plant, and report
multiple flat tires regularly sounds like masochism to me.
As I said, avoid that minefield.
> (Did you think that I was just imagining the goatheads?)
> You can do better than that.
Jobst Brandt
carl...@comcast.net
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:39:34 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
>>where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
>>also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
>>right over.
>>
>>Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
>>tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
>>sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
>
>That's bad.
>
>One thing with Mr. Tuffies is that it's possible to use oversized ones
>to get a little more protection. I've used the model for, I think,
>700x28-32 in 700x23 tires, and while it might not really get up the
>sidewall, it protects more.
>
>No, I don't work for the company or own stock in it.
Dear John,
We agree that strips like Mr. Tuffy help, but it's worth pointing out
that they won't stop a direct dead-on hit from a goathead:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=184a%20goathead%20through%20mrtuffy.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yb9ffd
That's a poorly focused goathead. I clipped off one thorn, gave the
goathead a gentle tap with a hammer, and easily drove its remaining
thorn through the red plastic Mr. Tuffy strip.
The tiny thorn is wickedly sharp and hard.
The thorn tip is blunted because it went through the strip and a soft
mat and then hit a hard wooden bench top.
The other objects are a sewing pin and a sharp toothpick. In a
slightly better picture, you can see that the undamaged goathead thorn
tip was as sharp as or sharper than the toothpick and pin:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=183a%20pin%20goathead%20toothpick%20mm.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yavhcp
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jobst,
Stop peddling twaddle, stop making silly excuses, and enjoy the thread
where the UK crowd seem puzzled by your denial of flints. You've read
them before, but they seem to bounce right off you.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
same standard.
Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Stop peddling twaddle, stop making silly excuses, and enjoy the
> thread where the UK crowd seem puzzled by your denial of flints.
> You've read them before, but they seem to bounce right off you.
I notice you got no volunteer pictures of such a device in a tire nor
one seen from the inside of a tire casing. Locally, we have riders
who constantly get flats in spite of liners and slime... and they ride
the same routes that I and many others ride without problem. They
also claim to have mysterious sharp demons that attack their tires but
never investigated what they are. If you tell them they are most
likely cherts, they would probably agree.
That is not the type of proof that makes sense on this newsgroup. I
note that you try a bit harder to offer pictorial proof and find
research to support your claims. Let's see if the flintstones can do
likewise.
Jobst Brandt
John Forrest Tomlinson
>I notice you got no volunteer pictures of such a device in a tire nor
>one seen from the inside of a tire casing. Locally, we have riders
>who constantly get flats in spite of liners and slime... and they ride
>the same routes that I and many others ride without problem.
I almost never get flats with a Tuffy liners. So what does that
prove?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
>> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an
>> athletic event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the
>> sport already. The ideal is to level the playing field while at
>> the same time not interfere with athletic competition....
> This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
> There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> same standard.
I see you deleted parallels in other sports, all of which have limits
on equipment such as balls, bats, goal size, playing field size and
others.
> Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.
What makes you choose that date? I haven't proposed an ideal bicycle
definition anywhere. There you go again putting words in my mouth!
Jobst Brandt
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Where is the conclusive proof that the upright bicycle frame within the
limits set forth by the UCI on April 1, 1934 is the optimum design?
> > What is wrong for having a design that is optimized for pavement?
> > If one lives in a "developed" nation, almost every destination can
> > be reached with most of the journey on paved roads.
>
> We have that already.
Really? The UCI legal bicycle is the ultimate design for all pavement
conditions? Even Holland or areas of the US Midwest where is relatively
flat and windy?
Where is the research to prove this?
> > (Not that the bikes upright racers ride work well off pavement - I
> > have observed a lot of punctures simply from riding on crushed
> > limestone surfaces).
>
> I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
> on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
> in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
> that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
> embedded in the surface of car tires.
On numerous club rides in Illinois, it would not be uncommon for one of
the upright road bicycles with skinny tires to get a cut flat every
time we would take a section of crushed stone [1] surfaced road. When
removed, the cut in the tire and tube would be visible, but there would
be no foreign object present. For what its worth, I never received any
cuts to my 44-406 Avocet Freestyle and 47-406 Tioga Comp Pool slick
tread tires in these conditions, despite them being mounted to a
recumbent bicycle.
> > [1] 2000+ bicycles per year.
> > [2] Unlike DF uprights, this can be a significant factor in recumbents.
>
> I take it you think more people would choose recliners if they were
> better streamlined. Is that what you mean[s]?
No, I was referring to some inferior recumbent designs of a couple of
decades ago such as the Hypercycle [2], which suffers from terrible
weight distribution, poor drivetrain component choice, excessive flex
in the pedal boom, poor seat design, awkward steering controls, and bad
steering geometry. Comparing the Hypercycle to a modern highracer such
as the Challenge Seiran SL [3], the Hypercycle is a VW Type 1 and the
Seiran is a Porsche Boxster.
I once met a person at a rest stop who told me that recumbents were
terrible performers. It turned out he had a ReBike, which was the
heaviest, ugliest, cheapest and slowest recumbent being sold at the
time. It was similar to judging all road bikes by the cheapest 1970's
Huffy 10-speed.
[1] Typically IDOT gradation CA-6, composed of either limestone or
dolomitized (calcium atom replaced by a magnesium atom) limestone.
[2] <http://www.ihpva.org/people/tstrike/shelco/hyperrs.jpg>.
[3]
<http://www.challengebikes.com/images/picture.php?filename=images/fotos/seiransl/foto-001.jpg&size=500&type=2&quality=87>.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> >> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an
> >> athletic event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the
> >> sport already. The ideal is to level the playing field while at
> >> the same time not interfere with athletic competition....
>
> > This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
>
> > There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> > freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> > same standard.
>
> I see you deleted parallels in other sports, all of which have limits
> on equipment such as balls, bats, goal size, playing field size and
> others.
What do other sports have to do with this anyway? But since you bring
it up, which has produced more technical innovations, FIA Formula 1 or
NA$CAR racing?
> > Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> > arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.
>
> What makes you choose that date?
To quote Wikipedia: "When the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) met
in February, 1934, manufacturers of upright bicycles lobbied to have
Faure's one-hour record declared invalid. On 1 April 1934, the UCI
published a new definition of a racing bicycle that specified how high
the bottom bracket could be above the ground, how far it could be in
front of the seat and how close it could be to the front wheel. The new
definition effectively banned recumbents from UCI events and guaranteed
that upright bicycles would not have to compete against recumbents. For
all intents and purposes, the ban is still in effect." [1]
> I haven't proposed an ideal bicycle definition anywhere.
Well, Jobst, you appear to be contending that a bicycle design that
would fit within the rules set by the UCI April 1, 1934 is the ideal,
and there is no point in a competition open to all bicycle types, since
no better design will be found.
> There you go again putting words in my mouth!
At least I am not changing what you wrote when I quote it, without
putting brackets around the changes, in a way that significantly
changes the meaning.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle>.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
* * Chas wrote:
> ...
> In a good (bad) goathead year, I've seen some with horns up to 8mm long!
You could motor-pace behind one of these:
<http://www.elginsweeper.com/CrosswindFury_1243.asp>. ;)
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Well Peter, since almost all of the posts on rec.bicycles.tech do NOT
mention recumbent bicycles, you should be able to ignore those that do,
instead of "pissing and moaning". There is no rule that EVERY post has
to be of interest to YOU, despite your being the most prolific lifetime
poster to the group.
I will point out again there is nothing in the rec.bicycles.tech
charter than prohibits the mention of recumbent bicycles.
* * Chas
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1161916310....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
YESSS! That's one hell of a durney!
Michael Press
<1161912833....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
In a time when cycling was game for innovation,
where are the recumbents?
<http://www.antiquemaps.de/cycling.html>
--
Michael Press
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/02/the_first_recum.html>?
Kirkpatrick Macmillan's first bicycle had a semi-recumbent riding
position:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Mccallvelos.jpg/451px-Mccallvelos.jpg>.
The bicycle and second rate professional rider Francis Faure breaking
Oscar Egg's long standing hour record, leading to the UCI banning
recumbents: <http://www.cyclegenius.com/images/faure.jpg>.
There are some more that appear in books, but are not easily (if at
all) found on the WWW.
Michael Press
<1161949969.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1161912833....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> > <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> > > > bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> > > > event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> > > > The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> > > > interfere with athletic competition....
> > >
> > > This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
> > >
> > > There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> > > freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> > > same standard.
> > >
> > > Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> > > arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.
> >
> > In a time when cycling was game for innovation,
> > where are the recumbents?
> > <http://www.antiquemaps.de/cycling.html>
>
> <http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/02/the_first_recum.html>?
There's one.
> Kirkpatrick Macmillan's first bicycle had a semi-recumbent riding
> position:
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Mccallvelos.jpg/451px-Mccallvelos.jpg>.
>
> The bicycle and second rate professional rider Francis Faure breaking
> Oscar Egg's long standing hour record, leading to the UCI banning
> recumbents: <http://www.cyclegenius.com/images/faure.jpg>.
I agree that it should not be banned. I want to see
them compete against upright bicycles. What about the
UCI rule banning structures to reduce air resistance?
>
> There are some more that appear in books, but are not easily (if at
> all) found on the WWW.
--
Michael Press
Chalo
>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
Someone who's never ridden a motorcycle will not be able to ride one
for three hours without pain. Someone who's well accustomed to a big
street bike won't be able to go a hour on a motocross bike without
pain. But you don't want to show up to Sturgis in a Camry, and you
won't be doing any triple jumps or rutted singletrack on an Electra
Glide.
'Bents are bikes for all occasions just like chaise lounges are seating
for all occasions. Which is to say... they're not. Some of us have no
problems sitting for hours in an armchair, or a folding chair, or on a
barstool, and there are many contexts in which those make much more
sense than a recliner.
'Bents have their place, but it's a much more limited application than
that of the archetypal DF bike. If all any of us wanted to do was roll
down endless straight flat deserted highways, then 'bents might be
ideal for that. But some of us want or need better manueverability,
better start/stop characteristics, better climbing, smaller overall
size, superior wheel rollover, tolerance of poor surfaces, ability to
ride through steps up or down, etc.
Tell me-- how does your bent do riding up two or three stairs, or down
forty of them? How does it handle in the mud? Can you navigate a
block worth of tightly packed sidewalk and then take to the street
without dismounting? Can you tote it up four flights of stairs every
day and stow it in a small closet? How about riding it over a fallen
tree or a parking berm? Can you fit it in the trunk of a car?
For that matter, can you even ride your 'bent no-handed? Can you do it
around a corner?
Enjoy your recliner. I'm sure it's quite comfy. But it doesn't come
without its tradeoffs.
Chalo
Chalo
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1161949969.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The bicycle and second rate professional rider Francis Faure breaking
> > Oscar Egg's long standing hour record, leading to the UCI banning
> > recumbents: <http://www.cyclegenius.com/images/faure.jpg>.
>
> I agree that it should not be banned.
No holiday cards from Jobst Brandt and Peter Chisholm for you this year
then! ;)
> I want to see
> them compete against upright bicycles. What about the
> UCI rule banning structures to reduce air resistance?
Brought on by the great Oscar Egg:
<http://www.velorizontal.com/images/mochet/oeufdeberthet.jpg>?
DougC
>
> Someone who's never ridden a motorcycle will not be able to ride one
> for three hours without pain. Someone who's well accustomed to a big
> street bike won't be able to go a hour on a motocross bike without
> pain. But you don't want to show up to Sturgis in a Camry, and you
> won't be doing any triple jumps or rutted singletrack on an Electra
> Glide.
sold with one seat available. The motorcycle shop does not have 30 seats
hanging on the wall for potential purchasers to "try".
Also you are mixing examples: is a Camry a motorcycle? (in the US it's a
car) And an Electra Glide is not an off-road motorcycle. If you wish to
point out that "a recumbent" cannot do all the things "that a road bike
AND an MTB can do", then I would point out that a road bike and an MTB
cannot -quite- do the same things either.
>
> 'Bents are bikes for all occasions just like chaise lounges are seating
> for all occasions. Which is to say... they're not. Some of us have no
> problems sitting for hours in an armchair, or a folding chair, or on a
> barstool, and there are many contexts in which those make much more
> sense than a recliner.
Interesting you should use the subject of chairs as an example: as you
might have noticed, a recumbent seat looks like a great many chairs sold
for other purposes; can you tell me any other chair or vehicle that uses
a bicycle-style saddle?
I have never seen any.
It's /possible/ that the reason is because "bicycle saddles are so
comfortable that if you sat on one elsewhere, you might never get up",
but I doubt it.
>
> 'Bents have their place, but it's a much more limited application than
> that of the archetypal DF bike.
Under typical use, I would not hesitate to take a recumbent anywhere
that a "typical" road bike would go.
I don't have an "off-road recumbent" as I've got no local place to ride
such a bicycle--but the typical DF bike is not any more versatile than a
recumbent is. There's a few different types of sanctioned [upright]
riding (road, MTB, cyclocross, and other less-popular/unusual types) and
it's not common to see anyone use one bicycle to compete across these
types. There are probably people who do it as a /novelty/, but they
likely don't often get to stand on the podium afterwards.
> If all any of us wanted to do was roll
> down endless straight flat deserted highways, then 'bents might be
> ideal for that. But some of us want or need better manueverability,
> better start/stop characteristics, better climbing, smaller overall
> size, superior wheel rollover, tolerance of poor surfaces, ability to
> ride through steps up or down, etc.
It's true that a recumbent is generally longer overall than an upright
bike. But a /unicycle/ is even lighter and more maneuverable than an
upright bike would be....
>
> Tell me-- (1)how does your bent do riding up two or three stairs, or down
> forty of them?
(1) Riding up stairs would probably be difficult (due to scraping at the
top), I've not ever tried it. I have ridden /down/ moderate-slope runs
of stairs, that's not a problem if I approach perpendicular at the top
and turn down them. -If the stairs are wide enough, that is. But stairs
are a pedestrian walkway anyway. (see #3 below)
> (2)How does it handle in the mud?
(2) I normally run semi-slick tires, so I don't ride it in mud. I /could
put knobbies on it/ and make a decent attempt I suppose. There are at
least a couple intrepid adventurers out there who ride (and compete) on
MTB recumbents, but they do tend to stick to running singletrack and
fire-road events.
> (3)Can you navigate a
> block worth of tightly packed sidewalk and then take to the street
> without dismounting?
(3)I do not usually ride on sidewalks at all, so I can't speak for
navigating them. Riding down a curb isn't a problem, other than the
fenders tend to strike on the way down.
...Also try to keep in mind that there is a much bigger variation in the
way that different recumbents ride than what you see with upright
bicycles. A long-wheelbase running dual big wheels (26" or 700's) would
ride quite different than a short-wheelbase running dual 20's.
> (4)Can you tote it up four flights of stairs every
> day and stow it in a small closet?
(4)Being longer overall, storage can be a problem--but if that's a
concern, some SWB's are pretty compact, only a bit longer and wider than
an upright bike would be. They are usually a bit heavier (30+ lbs) but
if you can lay down the ca$h that's not a problem either (CarBent, 18
lbs). With a recumbent you put up with a few more hassles /off/ the
bike, but you have a much more enjoyable time /on/ it. And if you're
buying a bicycle but you aren't primarily concerned how it rides, you
might as well not buy one at all.
> (5)How about riding it over a fallen
> tree or a parking berm?
(5)Can't recall having tried either. Maybe I'll re-enact that "fallen
tree and parking berm" stage of the TdF, and report back how I do.
> (6)Can you fit it in the trunk of a car?
(6)Well sure--the right recumbent, in the right car. Of course, one
could fit three men and a mule inside the trunk of a typical 1960's US
car. Some cars today store the spare tire on top of the engine, in order
to conserve what miniscule trunk space they have. Also, having small
front wheels, you don't reduce the overall bulk of a recumbent by taking
off the front wheel, like you do with an upright bike.
>
> For that matter, can you even ride your 'bent no-handed? Can you do it
> around a corner?
One I can reasonably well, the other I cannot very well unless I'm
holding a decent speed (15 mph or so). Recumbents with small front
wheels tend not to steer well no-handed; I haven't had a recumbent with
a large front wheel yet so about those I don't know. ...Also with some
recumbents, how well they steer no-handed depends partially on how the
handlebars are adjusted, and what pressures the [front] tires are run at.
And once again--is not being able to ride no-handed often a problem?
Most typical road and MTB uprights force the rider lean forward with
their weight on their hands anyway (note the "numb hands" complaints,
and padded gloves sold as a result), and in most US states riding
no-handed is illegal (as is riding on sidewalks). The only upright
bicycles that have upright seating conducive to riding no-handed are
"comfort"-style bikes, and I don't see a lot of kind words about them
around here. And I dare say it would be much more comfortable to ride 50
or 100 miles with "no hands" on a recumbent than it would be to do the
same on any upright bicycle.
>
> Enjoy your recliner. I'm sure it's quite comfy. But it doesn't come
> without its tradeoffs.
>
> Chalo
>
Ahh,,, but,,, do you really know what those tradeoffs are?.... I
remember exactly what I left when I gave away my last upright bike (a
full-suspended MTB with slicks, that I was using for short-run street
riding). The guy thought he got a deal because I let him have it for
free. Truth is, I didn't have the heart to charge him for it.
[-fini-]
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Chalo wrote:
>>
>> Someone who's never ridden a motorcycle will not be able to ride one
>> for three hours without pain. Someone who's well accustomed to a big
>> street bike won't be able to go a hour on a motocross bike without
>> pain. But you don't want to show up to Sturgis in a Camry, and you
>> won't be doing any triple jumps or rutted singletrack on an Electra
>> Glide.
>
>Your example fails you: motorcycles, like recumbents, are generally only
>sold with one seat available. The motorcycle shop does not have 30 seats
>hanging on the wall for potential purchasers to "try".
Dear Doug,
For what it's worth, there's a large variety of touring motorcycle
seats at impressive prices. The customers often spend fantastic
amounts of money replacing seats.
Unlike bicycle seats, motorcycle seats must be designed to fit
specific machines and often include a secondary passenger seat.
Note that the site, which sells only replacement motorcycle seats, is
available in English, German, Italian, French, and Spanish.
The first Harley seat, for example, is priced at only $289, but won't
fit Sportsters after 2003:
http://www.mustangseats.com/sportster/newsport.shtml
It's actually two models, one for 1982-1995, the other for 1996-2003.
Same seat style, different mounts.
Of course, in the trials backwater of motorcycling, the seat has been
replaced by a decal on a plastic fender:
http://www.gasgas.com/Gas-Gas-Media/2006-bikes/animatex260w.gif
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Someone who's never ridden a motorcycle will not be able to ride one
> > for three hours without pain. Someone who's well accustomed to a big
> > street bike won't be able to go a hour on a motocross bike without
> > pain. But you don't want to show up to Sturgis in a Camry, and you
> > won't be doing any triple jumps or rutted singletrack on an Electra
> > Glide.
>
> Your example fails you: motorcycles, like recumbents, are generally only
> sold with one seat available. The motorcycle shop does not have 30 seats
> hanging on the wall for potential purchasers to "try".
My point is that M/Cs, 'bents, and uprights all require some
acclimation. "Recumbent butt" is real, as is saddle soreness on DF
bikes or butt burn on M/Cs. Experience and good setup allow users of
all these things to enjoy as much comfort as they care to.
Another anlogy would be the squatting-on-haunches type of sitting
position used by East Indians. Even elderly folks show no particular
discomfort with this position that would have the average Westerner
complaining within moments. But long acquaintance with this matter of
sitting allows them to practice it without distress.
> If you wish to
> point out that "a recumbent" cannot do all the things "that a road bike
> AND an MTB can do", then I would point out that a road bike and an MTB
> cannot -quite- do the same things either.
Before the early 1980s, there were just "bikes". These bikes were
often expected to perform all the duties of both a "road bike" and a
"mountain bike"-- and they still are. Such is the versatilty of the
diamond frame when not handicapped with tall gears or skinny tires.
> Interesting you should use the subject of chairs as an example: as you
> might have noticed, a recumbent seat looks like a great many chairs sold
> for other purposes; can you tell me any other chair or vehicle that uses
> a bicycle-style saddle?
My great-grandparents' farm in Louisiana has a tractor with a seat like
that. They must have been inveterate masochists, eh? Perhaps buyers
paid more for their crops because of the harsh tractor seat. Likewise
motorcycle riders before about 1950 rode their hardtail machines with
unspeakable bicycle-like seats. Ignorant bastards!
http://www.krummsindian.com/images/47blackrightside.jpg
> > Enjoy your recliner. I'm sure it's quite comfy. But it doesn't come
> > without its tradeoffs.
>
> Ahh,,, but,,, do you really know what those tradeoffs are?
Oh yes; after a few days of 'bent rental, white knuckles, struggling to
maintain lane position, struggling to start at streetlights without
wagging all over the road, struggling to free up a hand to check the
time or scratch-- in short, struggling to do almost all the things that
require no special attention even on my choppers and tallbikes-- I have
intimately familiarized myself with many of bents' characteristic
problems.
Chalo
* * Chas
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162078275.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> DougC wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
<snip>
> My point is that M/Cs, 'bents, and uprights all require some
> acclimation. "Recumbent butt" is real, as is saddle soreness on DF
> bikes or butt burn on M/Cs. Experience and good setup allow users of
> all these things to enjoy as much comfort as they care to.
>
> Another anlogy would be the squatting-on-haunches type of sitting
> position used by East Indians. Even elderly folks show no particular
> discomfort with this position that would have the average Westerner
> complaining within moments. But long acquaintance with this matter of
> sitting allows them to practice it without distress.
>
The practice is common throughout much of East Asia including Japan.
> > If you wish to
> > point out that "a recumbent" cannot do all the things "that a road
bike
> > AND an MTB can do", then I would point out that a road bike and an
MTB
> > cannot -quite- do the same things either.
>
> Before the early 1980s, there were just "bikes". These bikes were
> often expected to perform all the duties of both a "road bike" and a
> "mountain bike"-- and they still are. Such is the versatilty of the
> diamond frame when not handicapped with tall gears or skinny tires.
>
We started riding off road in the mountains of Colorado and New Mexico
in the mid 1970's. We used regular road bikes with cyclocross sewups or
regular 700c clinchers. Later we switched to upright bars, cantilever
brakes and smaller frames for better standover clearance.
I recall that several cyclocross world championships in the late 70's
were won with Gios Torino road bikes with the only modification being
cyclocross tires.
> Oh yes; after a few days of 'bent rental, white knuckles, struggling
to
> maintain lane position, struggling to start at streetlights without
> wagging all over the road, struggling to free up a hand to check the
> time or scratch-- in short, struggling to do almost all the things
that
> require no special attention even on my choppers and tallbikes-- I
have
> intimately familiarized myself with many of bents' characteristic
> problems.
>
> Chalo
>
I briefly tried out a 'bent and found it difficult to keep balanced.
How about recumbent saddle on a horse?
Chas.
DougC
> My point is that M/Cs, 'bents, and uprights all require some
> acclimation. "Recumbent butt" is real, as is saddle soreness on DF
> bikes or butt burn on M/Cs. Experience and good setup allow users of
> all these things to enjoy as much comfort as they care to.
>
area of upright bicycle seats is far smaller than motorcycle seats or
recumbent seats. An upright bicycle saddle can't be made supportive,
because the legs need to stick downwards to pedal. And many
upright-bicycle riders go through trying numerous seats, and don't seem
to ever acclimatize to any of them. For that reason alone, it's just
poor design.
> Before the early 1980s, there were just "bikes". These bikes were
> often expected to perform all the duties of both a "road bike" and a
> "mountain bike"-- and they still are. Such is the versatilty of the
> diamond frame when not handicapped with tall gears or skinny tires.
>
Yea, and I'd bet that if we could go back in time, there'd be a lot of
people "back in the 1980's" who thought that bicycle saddles were
uncomfortable then, too. And there were recumbents out there also.
> My great-grandparents' farm in Louisiana has a tractor with a seat like
> that. They must have been inveterate masochists, eh? Perhaps buyers
> paid more for their crops because of the harsh tractor seat. Likewise
> motorcycle riders before about 1950 rode their hardtail machines with
> unspeakable bicycle-like seats. Ignorant bastards!
> http://www.krummsindian.com/images/47blackrightside.jpg
>
If you had a top-down view of that motorcycle seat, you'd see that it is
quite unlike a bicycle saddle. The motorcycle seat is basically oval
with some contouring for a human's rear end--just like tractor seats
were. You can get discomfort from sitting on them a long time, but it's
nothing anywhere near as severe as what an upright bicycle saddle would
do to you over the same amount of time. Motorcycle and tractor seats
have no /noses/, and as a result they have much more surface area to
support the rider's weight. They are NOT like a bicycle saddle. Go buy a
vintage tractor or motorcycle seat and mount it on any upright bicycle
you'd care to try it on and you'll find that out.
.....
On the other hand--the crank-forward bikes from RANS have seats that are
kinda-sorta like those seats. And the crank-forward bikes are made so
that your legs stick out in /front/ of your pelvis, instead of
/underneath/ your pelvis--and so,,,,, the seats have no noses.
> Oh yes; after a few days of 'bent rental, white knuckles, struggling to
> maintain lane position, struggling to start at streetlights without
> wagging all over the road, struggling to free up a hand to check the
> time or scratch-- in short, struggling to do almost all the things that
> require no special attention even on my choppers and tallbikes-- I have
> intimately familiarized myself with many of bents' characteristic
> problems.
>
> Chalo
>
Well if you're just too uncoordinated there's not a lot I can argue
with. But I've seen first-hand that many people of only average physical
capabilities--who've /never/ rode a recumbent before--can get on a CLWB
or a LWB and be riding around pretty easily within a couple minutes.
It's only the very-reclined ones that give most people trouble.
[>-fini<-]
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> ...
> Unlike bicycle seats, motorcycle seats must be designed to fit
"Dear Carl" is confusing upright bicycle SADDLES which are generally
interchangeable with bicycle SEATS that are found on recumbents and are
not generally interchangeable.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
* * Chas wrote:
>
> I briefly tried out a 'bent and found it difficult to keep balanced.
Let us emphasize the word "briefly" here.
Unless you were exceptionally athletically gifted as a child, you found
it difficult to balance an upright bicycle when you first learned to
ride one.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
DougC wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:
> > ...
> > Oh yes; after a few days of 'bent rental, white knuckles, struggling to
> > maintain lane position, struggling to start at streetlights without
> > wagging all over the road, struggling to free up a hand to check the
> > time or scratch-- in short, struggling to do almost all the things that
> > require no special attention even on my choppers and tallbikes-- I have
> > intimately familiarized myself with many of bents' characteristic
> > problems.
> >
> > Chalo
> Well if you're just too uncoordinated there's not a lot I can argue
> with. But I've seen first-hand that many people of only average physical
> capabilities--who've /never/ rode a recumbent before--can get on a CLWB
> or a LWB and be riding around pretty easily within a couple minutes.
> It's only the very-reclined ones that give most people trouble.
I suspect that Chalo was making the common mistake of trying to ride a
recumbent like an upright, which ends up grossly over-controlling the
recumbent. It has been my experience that it is often highly
experienced upright riders that have the most problems with recumbents
since their habits are so ingrained.
Chalo's description sounds like the first several months of my riding
upright bicycles. It took me about 3 fairly short rides (about 1 hour
total) to get beyond the point that Chalo describes.
Anyone who can competently ride an upright bicycle can ride a recumbent
with the proper mindset. I ride recumbents with no problem, and I lack
the overall coordination to master such upright skills as "bunny
hopping", wheelies, track stands and riding no-handed for significant
distances on most uprights.
IT'S NOT THAT HARD FOLKS!
Qui si parla Campagnolo
yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
embarassed.
Victor Kan
> yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
> Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> embarassed.
I can understand being embarassed to ride on one, whether it's because
you have trouble with the handling, or the way you think you look on one.
But you're embarassed to work on one??? What's that about? Is it like
a computer technician who prefers "Wintel" computers being embarassed to
work on a Mac even though the hard drive, memory, and these days even
CPU, are the same?
Tom Sherman wrote:
> It has been my experience that it is often highly
> experienced upright riders that have the most problems with recumbents
> since their habits are so ingrained.
That's been exactly my experience too when demo'ing 'bents to folks.
Some folks who haven't ridden bikes in years were able to hop onto my
old Linear Mach III CLWB bike with underseat steering and ride around
just fine. None of the hard core road bike riders had as much success
on that bike. I suspect that if they tried my "high racer", they'd have
more success since its handling is more DF-like.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> embarassed.
Hey Peter,
Just put on a fake beard, stuff some foam under your shirt [1] to
create a fake "aerobelly", and wear a helmet with a dark visor [2] and
no one will recognize you. ;)
Would you sell wheels to a person if you knew the wheels would end up
on a recumbent bicycle?
[1] No one rides a bent wearing an upright jersey.
[2] Propeller on top optional.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
> > Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> > it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> > embarassed.
>
> Hey Peter,
>
> Just put on a fake beard, stuff some foam under your shirt [1] to
> create a fake "aerobelly", and wear a helmet with a dark visor [2] and
> no one will recognize you. ;)
>
> Would you sell wheels to a person if you knew the wheels would end up
> on a recumbent bicycle?
I would gladly build them a set of wheels, even for you....you gotta
ride the thing, I don't.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Victor Kan wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
> > Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> > it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> > embarassed.
>
> I can understand being embarassed to ride on one, whether it's because
> you have trouble with the handling, or the way you think you look on one.
>
> But you're embarassed to work on one??? What's that about? Is it like
> a computer technician who prefers "Wintel" computers being embarassed to
> work on a Mac even though the hard drive, memory, and these days even
> CPU, are the same?
People might get the wrong idea about me....
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
> > > Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> > > it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> > > embarassed.
> >
> > I can understand being embarassed to ride on one, whether it's because
> > you have trouble with the handling, or the way you think you look on one.
> >
> > But you're embarassed to work on one??? What's that about? Is it like
> > a computer technician who prefers "Wintel" computers being embarassed to
> > work on a Mac even though the hard drive, memory, and these days even
> > CPU, are the same?
>
> People might get the wrong idea about me....
Look how far someone has fallen since winning the TdF [1] three (3)
times:
<http://www.penningerrecumbents.com/images/greg_lemond_on_bent.jpg> and
<http://www.wizwheelz.com/images/favorite_photos/LeMond.jpg>. ;)
[1] "Tour Day Frantz" for Bob Roll fans.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > >
> > > yep, I even worked on and then road with another guy a tandem 'bent'.
> > > Not that hard but something I will never do again, if I can help
> > > it..either work on one or ride one...life's too short to be that
> > > embarassed.
> >
> > Hey Peter,
> >
> > Just put on a fake beard, stuff some foam under your shirt [1] to
> > create a fake "aerobelly", and wear a helmet with a dark visor [2] and
> > no one will recognize you. ;)
> >
> > Would you sell wheels to a person if you knew the wheels would end up
> > on a recumbent bicycle?
>
> I would gladly build them a set of wheels, even for you....you gotta
> ride the thing, I don't.
Peter,
Would you consider riding a recumbent bicycle to fall under "outrages
upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment" or "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Don't want to ride one anymore than I want to play golf...wrestling
with you is approaching cruel and unusual..well unusal at least.
After searching other of the many NG you frequent, I am dismayed that
politically, you and I agree on most things...where did you go wrong?
On the 'bent and Japanese things are superior, European things are
inferior..I guess not considering the finer things made these days,
motorcycles, autos, watches, wine, clothes, art, cameras.....ya know....