| |
Main
Date: 30 Jun 2007 17:30:54
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
Hi, long time no see. So I have an odd question. I've been feeling like
on some days when I go to work I want a simpler bike. As I've gotten fit
over the years and upgraded my bike I've gotten to a point where my road
bike isn't very friendly for just hopping on and riding. Be it the tiny
saddle or the clipless pedals, it requires gearing up if I just want to
do the 2 mile commute to my work via bike/train or to the grocery store,
etc.
I'm seriously considering a "cruiser" sytle bicycle. Namely the Electra
Townie 21. Does anyone have any experience with these bikes? I used to
poo-poo them since I was doing "serious" riding. But I tried one out in
a bike shop today and I have to admit that it was seriously comfortable.
And strangely very fun to ride. I know I wouldn't ride long distances
wit it, but it was very fun and I was able to hop on with nothing more
than helmet and sandles. No special bike shorts. Just me and the bike.
I'm taken.
Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
Thanks,
Preston
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 06:53:19
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jul 1, 11:04 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Balance, who needs steenkin [1] balance?
>
> See: [snip trike links]
Or I could just keep riding my conventional bikes which, with their
dialed-in fit, let me ride centuries with no knee issues.
(I don't think I could park a trike in my office anyway.)
r
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 19:56:28
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
In article <1183243165.668539.25840@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
landotter <landotter@gmail.com > writes:
> On Jun 30, 5:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com> wrote:
>> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
>> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
>> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
>> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
>> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
> I really don't like the foot forward thing, since standing is almost
> out of the question, BUT I see folks around here that just love them
> to death.
That foot forward thing is what I use to kill rollers
while seat- ... erm, saddled, without changing gears --
as I approach the uphill side of the roller I lift a li'l
off the saddle and sorta ride the bike out from underneath
me, thereby scootching back in the saddle and getting some
extra leg extension. I've busted up many a competitive
fellow rider trying to race me up those slopes with their
en danseuse approach. Heh -- en danseuse for stoopid li'l
rollers :-)
Electra geometry seems to default to that approach; I dunno
how that'd work for every terrain. It sounds to me like the
Electra is designed for rolling terrains somewhere between
flatland and mountainous, like my own local riding environs.
I guess it's a feature of the bike that earnestly wants to be
exploited, but it also sounds to me like a compromise
solution for a lack of low gears. I think it'd be great for
rollers, but really long climbs would shut it down fairly quickly.
> Their Amsterdam, which is in my LBS's window, is less
> extreme and far cooler.
Those things are so pretty! But I opine they're more of
a flatland bike, at least with their stock gearing.
> For a couple of miles--style is far more
> important. That's why I think the Amsterdam is nice. It makes no
> pretense of trying to be the least bit sporty. I do wish it were
> slightly more upright.
Apparently Batavus's are becoming available here in Vancouver.
> My utility bike has rubber block pedals, and I often ride it in flip
> flops or even barefoot. Everybody needs a bike with fenders/rack/bell/
> block pedals and the like. Especially if it's red like mine.
But jet/obsidian/garnet/raven black is so ... balls-ily present.
Like the Batmobile.
My Twenty is plum brown. It has those lozenge-shaped,
chrome-encircled rubber pedals, with the Raleigh heron
motifs still distinctly raised in the rubber. Functionally,
they're horrid pedals. I think I'll stick some cheap-o
VPs on there, and relegate the orig's to storage.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 20:04:48
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jul 1, 6:36 pm, "Rich Clark" wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 11:22 am, R.D. Clark wrote:
> >> ...
> >> However, I've thought more than once about keeping something like a
> >> Townie in my office, because downtown Philly is very flat. But parking
> >> two bikes in my office would really be pushing my luck, and I'd never
> >> make the commute on any kind of recumbent....
>
> > Why wouldn't any kind of recumbent work and on what data is this
> > statement based?
>
> Based on the fact that I can barely make two of the climbs on my route on a
> bike with a less than 1:1 gear ratio, and I have to stand to do it. I don't
> think I could spin fast enough to keep a 'bent upright with a lower ratio.
Balance, who needs steenkin [1] balance?
See:
<http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/ >,
<http://www.greenspeed.com.au/ >,
<http://www.windcheetah.co.uk/ >,
<http://www.catrike.com/ >,
<http://www.wizwheelz.com/ >,
<http://www.logotrikes.com/ >,
<http://www.trisled.com.au/ >,
<http://organicengines.com/products/triclops-tricycle/ >,
<http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/scorpion/index_e.html >,
<http://www.optima-cycles.nl/main/en/modellen/5.html?Itemid=27 >,
etc...
[1] Gratuitous Brandtism.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 14:34:51
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
> As I've gotten fit
> over the years and upgraded my bike I've gotten to a point where my road
> bike isn't very friendly for just hopping on and riding. Be it the tiny
> saddle or the clipless pedals, it requires gearing up if I just want to
> do the 2 mile commute to my work via bike/train or to the grocery store,
> etc.
>
Why would you even ride a normal road-racing bike to the grocery store?
How you gonna carry anything?....
> I'm seriously considering a "cruiser" style bicycle. Namely the Electra
> Townie 21. .....
>
I've never rode one.
I do have a RANS Fusion, and it's quite a lot more comfortable to ride
than a normal geometry bicycle is. The seat it uses is proprietary
(based on their recumbent seats) and you can't mount a normal saddle to
the seatpost, and the bike takes a non-standard seatpost as well--so
you're rather stuck with the factory seat. The seat doesn't require
padded shorts at all to ride however, and I wouldn't even recommend
them. Just get any pair of unpadded lycra shorts you have and go with that.
The Fusion you essentially cannot stand and pedal on. I'm used to
recumbent bikes so that doesn't bother me, but it's odd at first because
there's times when you want to, it feels like you should be able to, and
you can't. The Dynamik and Zenetic can be pedaled standing, but as you
can see from the photos the bars are very close to your legs when you
do. I will lift my butt off the seat for crossing over harsh bumps (to
spare the spindly frame some shock) but the rest of the time I sit on
the seat.
One problem the RANS Sport Series bikes have is there's no good solution
for rear racks. They make a kit with adaptors, but it's not ideal if
you're tall; the seat will overhang a good portion of the rack,
preventing a cargo trunk from fitting on properly.
Another problem with the RANS bikes is they're not exactly cheap, which
influences how useful they are, in terms of what places you're willing
to leave an expensive bike locked up at.
Some other similar-riding-position bikes are the Lightfoot Surefoot,
Day6Bicycles and the DeVinci Lifestyle (in Canada). Most of these mount
normal saddles but you could possibly switch to a noseless ergo-type
saddle. On a normal bicycle the rider tends to slide forward off them,
but on bikes with the pedals shifted forwards it's not nearly as bad a
problem.
The Townie is more of a "comfort" bike than a cruiser.
> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
>
I've not heard that riding a non-standard bike would cause any of these
things. I'd have no problems going 50 miles on the Fusion. It's not as
comfortable as the long-wheelbase recumbent I have, but it's much nicer
than any normal upright bike would be.
The one guy I know of with a bad back didn't like the RANS Fusion when
he sat on it, but his back injury is pre-existing and it's so bad he has
an implanted morphine pump, and there's lots of other things he can't do
anymore either.
---------
For -ultimate- comfort you need a recumbent, but they tend to have two
problems as utility/errand bikes: one is that they cost significantly
more than an upright, and the other is that there's no easy way to mount
baskets on most of them. Some lower-priced ($500-$600) models are the
Sun EZ-1, Sun Sunray, Cycle Genius Starling and the Actionbent Mantaray.
~
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 12:03:32
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jul 1, 11:22 am, R.D. Clark wrote:
> ...
> However, I've thought more than once about keeping something like a
> Townie in my office, because downtown Philly is very flat. But parking
> two bikes in my office would really be pushing my luck, and I'd never
> make the commute on any kind of recumbent....
Why wouldn't any kind of recumbent work and on what data is this
statement based?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 19:36:45
From: Rich Clark
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183316612.927181.273440@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 11:22 am, R.D. Clark wrote:
>> ...
>> However, I've thought more than once about keeping something like a
>> Townie in my office, because downtown Philly is very flat. But parking
>> two bikes in my office would really be pushing my luck, and I'd never
>> make the commute on any kind of recumbent....
>
> Why wouldn't any kind of recumbent work and on what data is this
> statement based?
Based on the fact that I can barely make two of the climbs on my route on a
bike with a less than 1:1 gear ratio, and I have to stand to do it. I don't
think I could spin fast enough to keep a 'bent upright with a lower ratio.
r
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 11:34:31
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jul 1, 1:58 pm, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12...@cox.net > wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:22:31 -0700, rdclark wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 6:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com> wrote:
> > The only reason I personally wouldn't buy one is that there's nowhere
> > useful I can go on a bike from my house without having to climb, and I
> > need to be very careful about my knees.
>
> Assuming the gearing were low enough, your knees should be fine, right?
It would have to be pretty low. My commuter bikes have 30-tooth
chainrings and 32-tooth cogs, and even with that less-than-1:1 ratio
it's still easier on my knees if I stand on a couple of the grades I
encounter while commuting.
r
>
> --
> Luigi de Guzmanhttp://ouij.livejournal.com
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 17:58:18
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:22:31 -0700, rdclark wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com> wrote:
> The only reason I personally wouldn't buy one is that there's nowhere
> useful I can go on a bike from my house without having to climb, and I
> need to be very careful about my knees.
Assuming the gearing were low enough, your knees should be fine, right?
--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 09:22:31
From: rdclark
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jun 30, 6:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
The only reason I personally wouldn't buy one is that there's nowhere
useful I can go on a bike from my house without having to climb, and I
need to be very careful about my knees. So I'd probably opt for a more
conventional geometry, and end up with a hybrid or something. And why
bother?
However, I've thought more than once about keeping something like a
Townie in my office, because downtown Philly is very flat. But parking
two bikes in my office would really be pushing my luck, and I'd never
make the commute on any kind of recumbent.
I wonder if it might make sense to pick up a cheap used beater just to
see if you really would use one the way you think you might, before
investing in something new and more expensive.
r
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 07:58:49
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jul 1, 2:50 am, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> On 2007-06-30, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don't like the foot forward thing, since standing is almost
> > out of the question, BUT I see folks around here that just love them
>
> Standing in the pedals? Yeah, of course. I know it's a completely
> different power dinamic. That was the nature of my question, when you
> really think about it. Is how much that change can affect a person or if
> it even does, positively or negatively.
>
> > My utility bike has rubber block pedals, and I often ride it in flip
> > flops or even barefoot. Everybody needs a bike with fenders/rack/bell/
> > block pedals and the like. Especially if it's red like mine.
>
> :)
>
> Currently my road bike is my only bike. And that's what's bumming me
> out. I could just as easily get a mountain bike, I suppose, and put
> slicks on it, etc. The problem is that I'm not sure what's worse.
> Getting a mountain bike to be more upright, or upright enough for me (my
> current road bike had a fitting done on it and required the stem to be
> heightened quite a bit to get good geometry) or having my feet forward
> on a bike that already has upright geometry
ixne on the mtb. You need a silly, carefree bike to balance the karma
of your roadie. Stop thinking about ergonomics. focus more on clowns
and organ music.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 11:05:02
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
landotter wrote:
::
:: ixne on the mtb. You need a silly, carefree bike to balance the karma
:: of your roadie. Stop thinking about ergonomics. focus more on clowns
:: and organ music.
Hmm....that's a really good idea, actually. A carefree bike that you hop on
and ride without forethought...
I think my third bike might be a CF design...
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 07:47:24
From: Will
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jun 30, 5:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> Hi, long time no see. So I have an odd question. I've been feeling like
> on some days when I go to work I want a simpler bike. As I've gotten fit
> over the years and upgraded my bike I've gotten to a point where my road
> bike isn't very friendly for just hopping on and riding. Be it the tiny
> saddle or the clipless pedals, it requires gearing up if I just want to
> do the 2 mile commute to my work via bike/train or to the grocery store,
> etc.
>
> I'm seriously considering a "cruiser" sytle bicycle. Namely the Electra
> Townie 21. Does anyone have any experience with these bikes? I used to
> poo-poo them since I was doing "serious" riding. But I tried one out in
> a bike shop today and I have to admit that it was seriously comfortable.
> And strangely very fun to ride. I know I wouldn't ride long distances
> wit it, but it was very fun and I was able to hop on with nothing more
> than helmet and sandles. No special bike shorts. Just me and the bike.
> I'm taken.
>
> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Preston
Dunno... that crank forward setup doesn't look too efficient or
maneuverable.
I'd look into a Bianchi Milano with the 8 speed Shimano internal hub.
Add a dynamo to the front wheel and one of those nifty Lumotech lamps
and you've got
mucho style (especially the black units) plus serious day/night, wet/
dry operating potential.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 23:06:04
From: sally
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
Preston Crawford <me@prestoncrawford.com > wrote in
news:slrnf8dmf3.nhj.me@serpentor.cobrala:
> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
City bikes like the Electras and Breezers are designed to be comfortable and
maneuverable and safe in commuting situations: low speeds, stop-and-go
traffic, carrying groceries or school books, etc. That sounds perfect for
you. These bikes are not so comfortable and not efficient for faster or
longer rides.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 18:04:48
From: Cathy Kearns
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
"sally" <sally@sally.com > wrote in message
news:Xns995FA3CACC8ADs321@192.160.13.20...
> City bikes like the Electras and Breezers are designed to be comfortable
> and
> maneuverable and safe in commuting situations: low speeds, stop-and-go
> traffic, carrying groceries or school books, etc. That sounds perfect for
> you. These bikes are not so comfortable and not efficient for faster or
> longer rides.
I have a Breezer and it is absolutely wonderful for those quick trips to the
grocery store, or about town. My longer rides on it are about 6 miles each
way, flat, and it's great. I did take one decent hill on it once, and no,
it's really, really, really not made for that. I have never had back
problems from riding the Breezer.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 18:52:35
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
:: Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee
:: problems, etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike
:: geometry expert, so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and
:: see if you had any experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this
:: bike would be fine for 2 to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to
:: happen.
::
:: Thanks,
::
:: Preston
My gut instincts tell me this type of bike would be great for what you're
wanting it for. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to comment on
whether this type of bike will cause you any back problems, but assuming you
don't already have back problems -- I'd hazard a guess that you won't see
any with this bike and that low mileage.
I ride a recumbent and I have absolutely no problems with not being able to
stand.
If you enjoy the ride, I'd keep test driving the bike and make a decision
based on your own personal experience.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 02:47:00
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On 2007-06-30, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>
>:: Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee
>:: problems, etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike
>:: geometry expert, so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and
>:: see if you had any experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this
>:: bike would be fine for 2 to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to
>:: happen.
>::
>:: Thanks,
>::
>:: Preston
>
> My gut instincts tell me this type of bike would be great for what you're
> wanting it for. I honestly don't think anyone will be able to comment on
> whether this type of bike will cause you any back problems, but assuming you
> don't already have back problems -- I'd hazard a guess that you won't see
> any with this bike and that low mileage.
That was my guess too, but you never know. I have had back pain before,
but nothing chronic. Usually related to a really bad chair at work or
something. Otherwise I've avoided back problems. It's just one of those
things that for the usage pattern I envision it seems like the perfect
fit. I just want to make sure not to hurt myself. Although I guess for
the price it's not a huge risk.
> If you enjoy the ride, I'd keep test driving the bike and make a decision
> based on your own personal experience.
Yeah. Just wanted to make sure there weren't any giant red flags.
Preston
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 08:41:39
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
Preston Crawford wrote:
:: On 2007-06-30, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::: Preston Crawford wrote:
:::
::::: Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee
::::: problems, etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike
::::: geometry expert, so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys
::::: and see if you had any experience, gut instincts, whatever on if
::::: this bike would be fine for 2 to 5 mile rides or a disaster
::::: waiting to happen.
:::::
::::: Thanks,
:::::
::::: Preston
:::
::: My gut instincts tell me this type of bike would be great for what
::: you're wanting it for. I honestly don't think anyone will be able
::: to comment on whether this type of bike will cause you any back
::: problems, but assuming you don't already have back problems -- I'd
::: hazard a guess that you won't see any with this bike and that low
::: mileage.
::
:: That was my guess too, but you never know. I have had back pain
:: before, but nothing chronic. Usually related to a really bad chair
:: at work or something. Otherwise I've avoided back problems. It's
:: just one of those things that for the usage pattern I envision it
:: seems like the perfect fit. I just want to make sure not to hurt
:: myself. Although I guess for the price it's not a huge risk.
::
::: If you enjoy the ride, I'd keep test driving the bike and make a
::: decision based on your own personal experience.
::
:: Yeah. Just wanted to make sure there weren't any giant red flags.
::
:: Preston
I wonder how the two bikes you mention compare to these
http://www.crankforward.com/
I note that in one of the pictures that flash up there is a lady standing
while riding.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2007 22:39:25
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On Jun 30, 5:30 pm, Preston Crawford <m...@prestoncrawford.com > wrote:
> Hi, long time no see. So I have an odd question. I've been feeling like
> on some days when I go to work I want a simpler bike. As I've gotten fit
> over the years and upgraded my bike I've gotten to a point where my road
> bike isn't very friendly for just hopping on and riding. Be it the tiny
> saddle or the clipless pedals, it requires gearing up if I just want to
> do the 2 mile commute to my work via bike/train or to the grocery store,
> etc.
>
> I'm seriously considering a "cruiser" sytle bicycle. Namely the Electra
> Townie 21. Does anyone have any experience with these bikes? I used to
> poo-poo them since I was doing "serious" riding. But I tried one out in
> a bike shop today and I have to admit that it was seriously comfortable.
> And strangely very fun to ride. I know I wouldn't ride long distances
> wit it, but it was very fun and I was able to hop on with nothing more
> than helmet and sandles. No special bike shorts. Just me and the bike.
> I'm taken.
>
> Now the tough part. I don't want to suffer back problems, knee problems,
> etc. from the "foot forward" geometry. And I'm no bike geometry expert,
> so I thought I'd fall on the mercy of you guys and see if you had any
> experience, gut instincts, whatever on if this bike would be fine for 2
> to 5 mile rides or a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Preston
I really don't like the foot forward thing, since standing is almost
out of the question, BUT I see folks around here that just love them
to death. Their Amsterdam, which is in my LBS's window, is less
extreme and far cooler. For a couple of miles--style is far more
important. That's why I think the Amsterdam is nice. It makes no
pretense of trying to be the least bit sporty. I do wish it were
slightly more upright.
My utility bike has rubber block pedals, and I often ride it in flip
flops or even barefoot. Everybody needs a bike with fenders/rack/bell/
block pedals and the like. Especially if it's red like mine.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 02:50:22
From: Preston Crawford
Subject: Re: Ergonomics and cruiser bikes
|
On 2007-06-30, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:
> I really don't like the foot forward thing, since standing is almost
> out of the question, BUT I see folks around here that just love them
Standing in the pedals? Yeah, of course. I know it's a completely
different power dinamic. That was the nature of my question, when you
really think about it. Is how much that change can affect a person or if
it even does, positively or negatively.
> My utility bike has rubber block pedals, and I often ride it in flip
> flops or even barefoot. Everybody needs a bike with fenders/rack/bell/
> block pedals and the like. Especially if it's red like mine.
:)
Currently my road bike is my only bike. And that's what's bumming me
out. I could just as easily get a mountain bike, I suppose, and put
slicks on it, etc. The problem is that I'm not sure what's worse.
Getting a mountain bike to be more upright, or upright enough for me (my
current road bike had a fitting done on it and required the stem to be
heightened quite a bit to get good geometry) or having my feet forward
on a bike that already has upright geometry.
Preston
|
|
