| |
Main
Date: 09 Oct 2006 18:39:41
From: Ken Bradley
Subject: The most confortable saddle!
|
I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
ride much more if your conformable.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 05:39:32
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
In article <1160572682.748210.223020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > writes:
>
> Victor Kan wrote:
>> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> > ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
>> > answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
>> > fitted upright.
>>
>> How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
>> no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
>> answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
>> solve a problem?
>>
>> For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
>> distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
>> losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".
>
> Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
> that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
> the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
> that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
> weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
> upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
> that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
> as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
>>
>> The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
>> upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on
>> it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.
>>
>> If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
>> ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
>> average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?
>>
>> Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I
>> enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright
>> bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding
>> recumbent, which I also enjoy.
>>
>> There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better
>> handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike
>> visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in
>> my area.
>>
>> > DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.
>>
>> Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall
>> on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish
>> I had the DF under me.
>>
>> --
>> I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
>> legitimate replies.
>
--
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:39:23
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
In article <1160839985.889790.286480@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
>
> Who wants to ride in a group of upright riders and have to look at some
> guy's Lycra covered butt
Y'know, I think that contributes greatly to drivers'
anger toward cyclists. I can imagine how, from a
driver's POV while "stuck" behind a cyclist, they
might feel almost like they're being mooned, and
thereby mocked as this lycra-clad, tight little
tuchus persistently occupies their line-of-sight.
Of course, if that is indeed how they feel, I don't care.
cheers,
Tom
> (based on that most non-commuting cyclists [1]
> appear to be male, and by normal distribution, most will be
> heterosexual)?
>
> I prefer to NOT imitate a baboon [2] when riding.
>
> [1] At least in the US.
> [2] I.e., posterior display.
>
--
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:57:01
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> One can ride an upright bike without a saddle at all.
> Of course they'd have to take the seatpost out too,
> lest they forget they're saddleless :-0
I used to see an apparent commuter [1] who road an ATB without a saddle
or seat post. Based on the bike (no stickers, but higher end Shimano
parts), it was not because the rider could not afford said items.
However, I have not seen any other saddle less upright bicycles, so
they are fairly rare.
[1] Or the less likely alternative of someone riding the same route, at
the same general time of day, recreationally.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:50:51
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
>
> Can you hang recumbents from hooks, or are they simply too heavy?
I know several people who ride recumbents regularly and hang them from
hooks.
Most of the newer performance oriented recumbents are in the 10-13 kg
mass range.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:24:45
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On 14 Oct 2006 08:50:51 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> I know several people who ride recumbents regularly and hang them from
> hooks.
> Most of the newer performance oriented recumbents are in the 10-13 kg
> mass range.
Interesting. Due to limited space, being able to hang it would make it
practical for me to have one.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 16:15:20
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
My recumbent trike weighs in at 31lbs, fenders, rack and all. I hang it off
the back of my car on a standard two-arm rack when travelling (BB up).
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160841051.087643.15320@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
>>
>> Can you hang recumbents from hooks, or are they simply too heavy?
>
> I know several people who ride recumbents regularly and hang them from
> hooks.
>
> Most of the newer performance oriented recumbents are in the 10-13 kg
> mass range.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:46:05
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:03 GMT, Grolch wrote:
>
> > Look ya wankers, there's room for all. I ride bents too, I see the benefits
> > for me (older guy, fit but NOT interested in competetive riding anymore).
> > It's more about the HPV aspect of cycling and not one upmanship. I real in
> > many lycra clad go fasters on my rides, I climb lots, I lug around touring
> > gear often. Bents, alround are more comfortable and let us older guys keep
> > the mileage up. No what can be wrong with that.
>
> Nothing, as long as you don't wear lycra anymore. Wrinkly old people look
> terrible in it.
One advantage of a recumbent is that more clothing options are
available, such a "travel clothes" which look normal but are made from
wicking fabric.
A fully faired recumbent is even better, as all that is generally seen
is the rider's head (and feet when stopped).
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 20:14:13
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>A fully faired recumbent is even better, as all that is generally seen
>is the rider's head (and feet when stopped).
Implying that 'bent riders have ugly bodies?
;-)
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:40:27
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
In article <1160838966.088663.257560@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
> Why are upright bicycle type saddles not used in other applications -
Because they're meant to help with keeping a balanced structure (an
upright bicycle) ... upright. There aren't many other, similar
applications.
Saddles are not chairs; anyone using one as such and just
plunking their weight down on it is just using it wrongly.
On a well-fitting upright bicycle, I think there should be
more of a sense of the saddle coming up to connect with the
rider, than of the rider going down to connect with the saddle.
> after all, they are inexpensive compared to a recumbent type seat (that
> are used in many other applications).
One can ride an upright bike without a saddle at all.
Of course they'd have to take the seatpost out too,
lest they forget they're saddleless :-0
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:38:27
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> ...
> I have a customer, who had a neck injury, and got a 'bent. Now he
> rides, good for him. Somebody that has a physical reason he cannot ride
> an upright, 'bents do allow somebody to ride a 'bike'.
Will you work on this bike for him? Sell him hand built replacement
wheels (if needed)?
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:33:05
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
> > that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
> > the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
> > that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
> > weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
> > upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
> > that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
> > as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
>
> If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
> on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
> at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
> in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.
Who wants to ride in a group of upright riders and have to look at some
guy's Lycra covered butt (based on that most non-commuting cyclists [1]
appear to be male, and by normal distribution, most will be
heterosexual)?
I prefer to NOT imitate a baboon [2] when riding.
[1] At least in the US.
[2] I.e., posterior display.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:24:27
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Grolch wrote:
> One other huge advantage of riding recumbent is the wide open chest position
> (does not apply to "hamster style" bars)....
T-bars do not restrict breathing in any significant way, are lighter
than C-bars, are more aerodynamic (if suitably narrow), and look much
better.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:21:13
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Victor Kan wrote:
> > qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
> > > answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> > > fitted upright.
> >
> > How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
> > no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
> > answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
> > solve a problem?
> >
> > For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
> > distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
> > losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".
>
> Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
> that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
> the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
> that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
> weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
> upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
> that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
> as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
I think attitude's like Peter's being prevalent among bike shop
owners/managers and employees is a big reason for recumbents not being
sold successfully.
I am personally aware of several LBS that carried recumbents for a few
years, and all but one or two employees refused to have anything to do
with them.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:19:00
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
In article <1827lppxe1zzs$.1uqns8mqg0kp1$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <see@homepage.com > writes:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:03 GMT, Grolch wrote:
>
>> Look ya wankers, there's room for all. I ride bents too, I see the benefits
>> for me (older guy, fit but NOT interested in competetive riding anymore).
>> It's more about the HPV aspect of cycling and not one upmanship. I real in
>> many lycra clad go fasters on my rides, I climb lots, I lug around touring
>> gear often. Bents, alround are more comfortable and let us older guys keep
>> the mileage up. No what can be wrong with that.
>
> Nothing, as long as you don't wear lycra anymore. Wrinkly old people look
> terrible in it.
After 54 years, my own hide is starting to show its age.
Maybe Tilley Endurables (www.tilley.com) could
run-off a line of cycling apparel.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:16:06
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Ken Bradley wrote:
> > I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
> > thing exist, for a normal upright bike.
>
> Sounds like what didn't exist for you is a proper fitiing bicycle.
>
> Too much force on a small area,
> > pressure, if I remember my physics
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it, Ergonomics and yer butt size does,
> along with bike fit.
>
> . My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
> > recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
> > you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
> > ride much more if your conformable.
>
> Unique, sometimes hard to find parts, heavy, complicated, hard to see
> from(behind) and be seen on..if it works for you, fine, but it really
> answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> fitted upright. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like
> climbing.
Where is the proof that "proper (upright bicycle) fit" works for
everyone?
If people try cycling and find it uncomfortable, most will give up and
move on to another activity.
Why are upright bicycle type saddles not used in other applications -
after all, they are inexpensive compared to a recumbent type seat (that
are used in many other applications).
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:08:35
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Victor Kan wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
> > answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> > fitted upright.
>
> How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
> no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
> answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
> solve a problem?...
Peter's mind is made up about recumbents, and he is unlikely to change.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 05:56:12
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:02:27 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
>
> > But what does any of this have to do with my objection to your
> > insistence that recumbents answer no question, solve no problem?
>
> Don't get too worked up over his style. He doesn't think Shimano gear
> solves any problem or answers any question, either. Except maybe
> "Why are these Campy shifters so stiff and clunky?" :-)
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
Tell ya what Michael, I'll speak for myself. Do a google search about
hubs and touring gear...tell me what I said about that. Don't forget
MTB cranks as well.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:40:42
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On 14 Oct 2006 05:56:12 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Tell ya what Michael, I'll speak for myself. Do a google search about
> hubs and touring gear...tell me what I said about that. Don't forget
> MTB cranks as well.
No need, I can guess: "The Campag version would be better if they
made one!" :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 05:54:40
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Victor Kan wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > Victor Kan wrote:
> >>A good way to shut me up on this is for folks who dismiss recumbents to
> >>respond as consistently to a discussion about $$$ upright bike frames
> >>being a comfier platform than than a cheap, mass produced bike by
> >>declaring that that custom job answers no question, solves no problem.
> >
> >
> > It's a basic design difference, not $ related. A big $, light 'bent is
> > no more an answer than a big $ upright.
>
> It'd still be nice to see you post that XYZ's big $ upright answers no
> question, etc. the next time it comes up in discussion where XYZ says
> it's more comfy than his previous, cheap upright bike ever could be,
> whether it's magically absorbing road buzz or feeling lively while
> stable, etc.
>
> > 'bents are not mainstream,
> > never will be, no matter how much dedicated 'bent advocates would like
> > it to be so.
>
> I wouldn't say never, but I agree with the sentiment in general. I will
> say that I think bents, perhaps in the form of the Sun line as backed by
> J&B importers has a better chance of going somewhere than the 650B
> movement backed by QBP and others for providing comfy and practical
> bikes. But that's just a WAG.
>
> > Why is that? Complicated answer to a simple question is
> > why, like it or don't.
>
> Like it or don't, some people have tried to get comfy on upright bikes,
> but cannot for whatever reason, no matter how much $$$ they spend or how
> much expert fit advise they get, while recumbents answered their
> question, solved their problem.
I have a customer, who had a neck injury, and got a 'bent. Now he
rides, good for him. Somebody that has a physical reason he cannot ride
an upright, 'bents do allow somebody to ride a 'bike'.
>
> I'm not in their ranks since I'm comfy on my upright bike (not as comfy
> as my bent), but I won't dismiss their issues or their solution.
>
> > Like I said, if ya like your 'bent, fine and dandy but don't expect
> > them to be in your LBS any time soon.
>
> Too late, they're already there. Of my four recumbents, I've bought two
> at two different LBS's, two mail order.
>
> But you're right, LBS's that carry bents are still relatively few and
> far in between.
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:08:38
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
In article <1pq0p3orqqa4a$.pn3um2cecgrt.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <see@homepage.com > writes:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:52:12 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> Maybe getting a recumbent is like getting a horse -- one of the
>> first things to think about could be: "Where am I going to put it?"
>> But even upright bikes present that problem, although I expect
>> to a lesser degree. Except folding bikes.
>
> Can you hang recumbents from hooks
Yeah, but it won't kill 'em.
But it might render 'em too hard to get back down to bother with.
Just leave it there and kick back in the Lazee-Boy and go back to
reading Climate Change articles in Sci-Am. Or The Sporting News.[*]
cheers,
Tom
[*] hoping for a Detroit/St Louis World Series.
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:52:12
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
In article <1160673306.861974.238060@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"victor.kan@gmail.com" <victor.kan@gmail.com > writes:
> What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
> components) answer or solve?
Social acceptance in some circles :-)
Some turnkey, "complete" transportational bikes like the Breezer Uptown
answer lots of practical problems, and they're pretty spendy.
Toss a Rohloff SpeedHub into the deal and we're really talking megabucks.
Actually, upright bikes are good for introducing /desired/ "problems",
like fixed-gear and single-speed drives. So in that way they may
be more versatile.
> I suppose the custom made bikes can help
> with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
> that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
I think the recumbent config is a natural to adapt for a rocket bike.
There's a place for a firewall. A longer wheelbase might reduce the
possibility of endos. It might need some aerodynamic design features
to keep it on the ground, though.
And I imagine it would be a hassle to park it anywhere.
Maybe getting a recumbent is like getting a horse -- one of the
first things to think about could be: "Where am I going to put it?"
But even upright bikes present that problem, although I expect
to a lesser degree. Except folding bikes.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:22:44
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:52:12 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
> Maybe getting a recumbent is like getting a horse -- one of the
> first things to think about could be: "Where am I going to put it?"
> But even upright bikes present that problem, although I expect
> to a lesser degree. Except folding bikes.
Can you hang recumbents from hooks, or are they simply too heavy?
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 06:12:10
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Victor Kan wrote:
> Paul Hobson wrote:
> > My guess is that a recumbent that cheap is h-e-a-v-y and not much fun to
> > ride.
>
> It weighs about 30 lbs for a steel frame. But what is more important,
> the weight on the scale, or the watts you have to put out to get the
> performance you want on the roads you ride?
>
> My current recumbent of choice weighs probably 28 lbs with a steel frame
> and no carbon parts beyond the fork (blades only, and using a CF seat
> would knock off another couple of pounds). It takes me less effort (as
> measured by heart rate vs. my much lighter aluminum road bike) to go
> faster on the routes I normally ride, which are mostly longish rolling
> hills.
>
> Fun? That's subjective and some like that 30lb $600 bike just fine,
> and have much more fun on it than their upright bike
> (which must have been ill-fitting if they weren't comfy and having fun
> on it),
> regardless of price.
>
> >> What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
> >> components) answer or solve?
>
> > They're fun and pretty (and probably light).
>
> I'm sure that's true. But what question do they answer, what problem do
> they solve?
>
> >> I suppose the custom made bikes can help
> >> with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
> >> that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
>
> > With modern (and not so modern) frame geometry, the right stem and seat
> > post ($75 buck total, tops!) solves many a fit issue. Saddles are
> > another barrel of monkeys. But even with my hand built wheels and fancy
> > saddle, my bike came out to less than 600 bucks and is very light.
>
> What does that have to do with megabuck upright bikes and the lack of
> questions answered and problems solved by them? Perhaps you've made my
> point for me regarding Peter's consistent response to unnecessary,
> expensive "solutions" like recumbents.
>
> A good way to shut me up on this is for folks who dismiss recumbents to
> respond as consistently to a discussion about $$$ upright bike frames
> being a comfier platform than than a cheap, mass produced bike by
> declaring that that custom job answers no question, solves no problem.
It's a basic design difference, not $ related. A big $, light 'bent is
no more an answer than a big $ upright. 'bents are not mainstream,
never will be, no matter how much dedicated 'bent advocates would like
it to be so. Why is that? Complicated answer to a simple question is
why, like it or don't.
Like I said, if ya like your 'bent, fine and dandy but don't expect
them to be in your LBS any time soon.
>
> > Do that with a good recumbent.
>
> Unfortunately, the "very light" part hasn't been conquered yet by the
> Taiwan manufacturers churning out those $600 bikes.
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:16:22
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Victor Kan wrote:
>>A good way to shut me up on this is for folks who dismiss recumbents to
>>respond as consistently to a discussion about $$$ upright bike frames
>>being a comfier platform than than a cheap, mass produced bike by
>>declaring that that custom job answers no question, solves no problem.
>
>
> It's a basic design difference, not $ related. A big $, light 'bent is
> no more an answer than a big $ upright.
It'd still be nice to see you post that XYZ's big $ upright answers no
question, etc. the next time it comes up in discussion where XYZ says
it's more comfy than his previous, cheap upright bike ever could be,
whether it's magically absorbing road buzz or feeling lively while
stable, etc.
> 'bents are not mainstream,
> never will be, no matter how much dedicated 'bent advocates would like
> it to be so.
I wouldn't say never, but I agree with the sentiment in general. I will
say that I think bents, perhaps in the form of the Sun line as backed by
J&B importers has a better chance of going somewhere than the 650B
movement backed by QBP and others for providing comfy and practical
bikes. But that's just a WAG.
> Why is that? Complicated answer to a simple question is
> why, like it or don't.
Like it or don't, some people have tried to get comfy on upright bikes,
but cannot for whatever reason, no matter how much $$$ they spend or how
much expert fit advise they get, while recumbents answered their
question, solved their problem.
I'm not in their ranks since I'm comfy on my upright bike (not as comfy
as my bent), but I won't dismiss their issues or their solution.
> Like I said, if ya like your 'bent, fine and dandy but don't expect
> them to be in your LBS any time soon.
Too late, they're already there. Of my four recumbents, I've bought two
at two different LBS's, two mail order.
But you're right, LBS's that carry bents are still relatively few and
far in between.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 06:06:16
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
victor.kan@gmail.com wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > Some will argue that having the cranks in front of you, and not below
> > you, is not efficient at all and 'bent' riders will say that the
> > 'advantage' is in comfort but I agree, a very expensive, complicated
> > answer to a pretty simple and inexpensive question..how to properl
> > oneself on a two wheeled vechicle.
>
> Expensive is in the eye of the beholder and depends on where you are
> looking.
>
> You can buy a decent recumbent road bicycle new for ~$700 delivered
> (unassembled). There are cheaper ones ($500+delivery), but I have no
> experience with those. Yes, that's very expensive compared to a
> Walt BSO. But it's surely not sticker shocking to folks who've been
> to a LBS and shopped road bikes.
>
> What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
> components) answer or solve? I suppose the custom made bikes can help
> with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
> that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
NEVER mentioned Campagnolo altho those that don't do research will see
that Mirage is very inexpensive.
MANY bike shop uprights, well designed and made in the $700 or so
range. Light, much lighter than any $700 'bent, and a bit of fit
expertise will make it comfy. Carbon frames and forks, triple
components, great brakes, shifters, wheels, in the 17-18 pound range no
sweat, compared to the $700 'bent(unassembled), with strange wheel
sizes, various sterring structure designs, probably in the what, 25+
pound range?? PLUS, try to find a bike shop that will work on it. Does
it come with technical expertise?, to assemble and then maintain?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:02:27
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> victor.kan@gmail.com wrote:
>>What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
>>components) answer or solve? I suppose the custom made bikes can help
>>with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
>>that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
>
>
> NEVER mentioned Campagnolo altho those that don't do research will see
> that Mirage is very inexpensive.
I know Mirage is inexpensive. Maybe I should have said Campy Record.
But then you brought up the expensive nature of recumbents without doing
research into the current state of the recumbent ket.
As for expansive and complex, what question/problem is answered/solved
by Record or DuraAce or SRAM brifters?
> MANY bike shop uprights, well designed and made in the $700 or so
> range. Light, much lighter than any $700 'bent, and a bit of fit
> expertise will make it comfy. Carbon frames and forks, triple
> components, great brakes, shifters, wheels, in the 17-18 pound range no
> sweat, compared to the $700 'bent(unassembled), with strange wheel
> sizes, various sterring structure designs, probably in the what, 25+
> pound range?? PLUS, try to find a bike shop that will work on it. Does
> it come with technical expertise?, to assemble and then maintain?
I agree that recumbents are more complex and likely have lesser
components than a similarly priced upright bike.
The $700 recumbent I mentioned has four non-standard bike parts:
- the frame (the main drawback shop-wise is that usual frame alignment
tools won't work)
- the stem (uses an alternative, but simple preload adjustment in a
threadless headset rather than the usual star nut+topcap)
- the seat
- the chain idlers
Everything else is standard bike stuff any competent bike mechanic can
handle. The frame has the same 1 1/8" head tube, the same 68mm English
threaded BB, the same 135mm rear spacing, the same 100mm front fork
spacing you find on other bikes. As for the strange wheel sizes, it
uses standard 559mm and 406mm wheels. Two different wheel sizes is
unusual in the bike ket overall, but the wheels themselves, their
tires and tubes are standard stuff you can replace at Walt in a pinch.
But what does any of this have to do with my objection to your
insistence that recumbents answer no question, solve no problem?
Do you really believe that?
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:26:49
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:02:27 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
> As for expansive and complex, what question/problem is answered/solved
> by Record or DuraAce or SRAM brifters?
"How can I compensate for my pot belly and lack of fitness, while
demonstrating my high disposable income?" :-)
I tried the SRAM shifters for the first time the other day, because someone
at my favourite shop ordered them for their novelty value (see above
question!) They feel nice, and the short/long lever push works well. There
didn't seem to be any trim on the front derailleur, though.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 03:50:03
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Look ya wankers, there's room for all. I ride bents too, I see the benefits
for me (older guy, fit but NOT interested in competetive riding anymore).
It's more about the HPV aspect of cycling and not one upmanship. I real in
many lycra clad go fasters on my rides, I climb lots, I lug around touring
gear often. Bents, alround are more comfortable and let us older guys keep
the mileage up. No what can be wrong with that.
Ride on, Grolsch
"Michael Warner" <see@homepage.com > wrote in message
news:141jvwjfuqn6w.1s5tumnpaxbj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:02:27 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
>
>> As for expansive and complex, what question/problem is answered/solved
>> by Record or DuraAce or SRAM brifters?
>
> "How can I compensate for my pot belly and lack of fitness, while
> demonstrating my high disposable income?" :-)
>
> I tried the SRAM shifters for the first time the other day, because
> someone
> at my favourite shop ordered them for their novelty value (see above
> question!) They feel nice, and the short/long lever push works well. There
> didn't seem to be any trim on the front derailleur, though.
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:38:19
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:03 GMT, Grolch wrote:
> Look ya wankers, there's room for all. I ride bents too, I see the benefits
> for me (older guy, fit but NOT interested in competetive riding anymore).
> It's more about the HPV aspect of cycling and not one upmanship. I real in
> many lycra clad go fasters on my rides, I climb lots, I lug around touring
> gear often. Bents, alround are more comfortable and let us older guys keep
> the mileage up. No what can be wrong with that.
Nothing, as long as you don't wear lycra anymore. Wrinkly old people look
terrible in it.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 12:21:41
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:02:27 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
> But what does any of this have to do with my objection to your
> insistence that recumbents answer no question, solve no problem?
Don't get too worked up over his style. He doesn't think Shimano gear
solves any problem or answers any question, either. Except maybe
"Why are these Campy shifters so stiff and clunky?" :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 10:15:07
From: victor.kan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Some will argue that having the cranks in front of you, and not below
> you, is not efficient at all and 'bent' riders will say that the
> 'advantage' is in comfort but I agree, a very expensive, complicated
> answer to a pretty simple and inexpensive question..how to properl
> oneself on a two wheeled vechicle.
Expensive is in the eye of the beholder and depends on where you are
looking.
You can buy a decent recumbent road bicycle new for ~$700 delivered
(unassembled). There are cheaper ones ($500+delivery), but I have no
experience with those. Yes, that's very expensive compared to a
Walt BSO. But it's surely not sticker shocking to folks who've been
to a LBS and shopped road bikes.
What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
components) answer or solve? I suppose the custom made bikes can help
with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:51:15
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
victor.kan@gmail.com wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Some will argue that having the cranks in front of you, and not below
>> you, is not efficient at all and 'bent' riders will say that the
>> 'advantage' is in comfort but I agree, a very expensive, complicated
>> answer to a pretty simple and inexpensive question..how to properl
>> oneself on a two wheeled vechicle.
>
> Expensive is in the eye of the beholder and depends on where you are
> looking.
>
> You can buy a decent recumbent road bicycle new for ~$700 delivered
> (unassembled). There are cheaper ones ($500+delivery), but I have no
> experience with those. Yes, that's very expensive compared to a
> Walt BSO. But it's surely not sticker shocking to folks who've been
> to a LBS and shopped road bikes.
My guess is that a recumbent that cheap is h-e-a-v-y and not much fun to
ride.
> What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
> components) answer or solve?
They're fun and pretty (and probably light).
> I suppose the custom made bikes can help
> with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
> that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
With modern (and not so modern) frame geometry, the right stem and seat
post ($75 buck total, tops!) solves many a fit issue. Saddles are
another barrel of monkeys. But even with my hand built wheels and fancy
saddle, my bike came out to less than 600 bucks and is very light. Do
that with a good recumbent.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 00:20:14
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Paul Hobson wrote:
> My guess is that a recumbent that cheap is h-e-a-v-y and not much fun to
> ride.
It weighs about 30 lbs for a steel frame. But what is more important,
the weight on the scale, or the watts you have to put out to get the
performance you want on the roads you ride?
My current recumbent of choice weighs probably 28 lbs with a steel frame
and no carbon parts beyond the fork (blades only, and using a CF seat
would knock off another couple of pounds). It takes me less effort (as
measured by heart rate vs. my much lighter aluminum road bike) to go
faster on the routes I normally ride, which are mostly longish rolling
hills.
Fun? That's subjective and some like that 30lb $600 bike just fine,
and have much more fun on it than their upright bike
(which must have been ill-fitting if they weren't comfy and having fun
on it),
regardless of price.
>> What question or problem do megabuck upright bikes (or dare I say Campy
>> components) answer or solve?
> They're fun and pretty (and probably light).
I'm sure that's true. But what question do they answer, what problem do
they solve?
>> I suppose the custom made bikes can help
>> with unusual fit/comfort issues. Imagine that--an "expensive" purchase
>> that solves a fit/comfort problem. No way!
> With modern (and not so modern) frame geometry, the right stem and seat
> post ($75 buck total, tops!) solves many a fit issue. Saddles are
> another barrel of monkeys. But even with my hand built wheels and fancy
> saddle, my bike came out to less than 600 bucks and is very light.
What does that have to do with megabuck upright bikes and the lack of
questions answered and problems solved by them? Perhaps you've made my
point for me regarding Peter's consistent response to unnecessary,
expensive "solutions" like recumbents.
A good way to shut me up on this is for folks who dismiss recumbents to
respond as consistently to a discussion about $$$ upright bike frames
being a comfier platform than than a cheap, mass produced bike by
declaring that that custom job answers no question, solves no problem.
> Do that with a good recumbent.
Unfortunately, the "very light" part hasn't been conquered yet by the
Taiwan manufacturers churning out those $600 bikes.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 07:47:44
From: Bill H.
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
On Oct 9, 11:10 pm, "Smokey" <smokeystrodt...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Ken Bradley wrote:
> I'm comfortable on my Lemond with my Brooks saddle and Rivendell
> Noodle drop bars. That's the way it should be; no matter what you ride,
> you should be comfortable. And as Eddy Merckx said "ride lots".
>
> Smokey
I've been happy with my Brooks as well (B17 Narrow), though it's
surprising. The saddle is very stiff and rigid (hasn't "softened up
much") but is very supportive.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:18:13
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
> > that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
> > the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
> > that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
> > weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
> > upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
> > that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
> > as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
>
> If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
> on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
> at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
> in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.
Some will argue that having the cranks in front of you, and not below
you, is not efficient at all and 'bent' riders will say that the
'advantage' is in comfort but I agree, a very expensive, complicated
answer to a pretty simple and inexpensive question..how to properl
oneself on a two wheeled vechicle.
I'm out
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Victor Kan wrote:
> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
> > answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> > fitted upright.
>
> How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
> no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
> answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
> solve a problem?
>
> For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
> distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
> losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".
Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
>
> The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
> upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on
> it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.
>
> If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
> ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
> average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?
>
> Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I
> enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright
> bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding
> recumbent, which I also enjoy.
>
> There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better
> handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike
> visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in
> my area.
>
> > DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.
>
> Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall
> on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish
> I had the DF under me.
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 01:04:09
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
> that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
> the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
> that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
> weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
> upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
> that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
> as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:02:05
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>>Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
>>that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
>>the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
>>that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
>>weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
>>upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
>>that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
>>as long as uprights, fit well, exist.
So maybe the better statement is that "bents don't answer all questions,
and don't solve all problems". Only the hopelessly kool aid drunk would
disagree.
> If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
> on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
> at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
> in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.
I ride in heavy traffic (albeit not big city urban traffic with
homicidal cab drivers) all the time and don't have problems that are
recumbent induced. Granted, the roads in my area are pretty good for
the most part.
I have no interest in riding with groups, whether on a DF or a
recumbent, competitively or recreationally. But for those who do,
riding with groups of DFs can be a problem when done incorrectly (it
seems 'bents are OK if they either stay in the back or stay in the front
rather than rotating through with everybody else), but groups of 'bents
can surely work.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:45:18
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:02:05 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
> I have no interest in riding with groups, whether on a DF or a
> recumbent, competitively or recreationally.
I find that very hard to understand, but I suppose it fits with the
stereotype of recumbent lovers as loners. All of my serious riding is with
a partner or group - not necessarily in a tight formation, particularly in
the hills - because it's competitive, social, and there's safety and help
with repairs in numbers.
For me, riding alone is strictly for in-between recovery rides and
commuting, when I don't want to be tempted to compete with anyone
because I can't resist it :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:23:00
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:02:05 GMT, Victor Kan wrote:
>
>
>>I have no interest in riding with groups, whether on a DF or a
>>recumbent, competitively or recreationally.
>
>
> I find that very hard to understand, but I suppose it fits with the
> stereotype of recumbent lovers as loners. All of my serious riding is with
> a partner or group - not necessarily in a tight formation, particularly in
> the hills - because it's competitive, social, and there's safety and help
> with repairs in numbers.
I find it equally hard to understand the appeal of being sociable while
riding a bike. I guess when I ride, I usually treat it like an
individual time trial.
I reserve my competitive and social athletic pursuits to another sport
where there's more opportunity for socializing as well as competing head
to head (as opposed to head to butt, or foot to head on recumbents, or
foot to butt in a mixed DF/bent group, in cycling :-).
> For me, riding alone is strictly for in-between recovery rides and
> commuting, when I don't want to be tempted to compete with anyone
> because I can't resist it :-)
Since 90% of my riding is commuting, that may explain a lot as well.
But then if I'm riding to or from work and see a rabbit out in front, I
inevitably feel the urge to pursue and overtake. Only once have I
caught up with someone and formed a "group" out on the road during a
commute, but that was because the traffic was too heavy to pass safely,
and oh yeah, he was a stronger rider than I was anyway and I wouldn't
have been able to go any faster than we were already going.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 08:06:28
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
Ken Bradley wrote:
> I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
> thing exist, for a normal upright bike.
Sounds like what didn't exist for you is a proper fitiing bicycle.
Too much force on a small area,
> pressure, if I remember my physics
Physics has nothing to do with it, Ergonomics and yer butt size does,
along with bike fit.
. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
> recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
> you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
> ride much more if your conformable.
Unique, sometimes hard to find parts, heavy, complicated, hard to see
from(behind) and be seen on..if it works for you, fine, but it really
answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
fitted upright. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like
climbing.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:21:55
From: DougC
Subject: Re: The most coMfortable saddle!
|
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> Sounds like what didn't exist for you is a proper fitiing bicycle.
> ........
>
> Physics has nothing to do with it, Ergonomics and yer butt size does,
> along with bike fit.
> .....
>
> Unique, sometimes hard to find parts, heavy, complicated, hard to see
> from(behind) and be seen on..if it works for you, fine, but it really
> answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> fitted upright. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like
> climbing.
>
Well no.
The thing about recumbents is that they are comfortable to ride, in a
way that no upright is. And the more miles you ride, the more important
the comfort difference becomes.
Yes it is true that recumbents are generally heavier--but people
complain a lot more about riding discomfort than they do about their
bikes being a couple pounds too heavy.
Let me ask you this: if having a lighter bicycle is so important than
being comfortable, then why have a seat on an upright bicycle at all?
There are so many people who complain that they cannot find a
"comfortable" seat for their upright bicycles, why not just get rid of
the seat and seatpost totally, and save a couple pounds?.....
-end-
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:39:25
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: The most coMfortable saddle!
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:21:55 -0500, DougC wrote:
> Yes it is true that recumbents are generally heavier--but people
> complain a lot more about riding discomfort than they do about their
> bikes being a couple pounds too heavy.
Not the skinny racer types I chase up hills. They're weight weenies
with bums of steels.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 01:24:13
From: Victor Kan
Subject: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
> answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
> fitted upright.
How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
solve a problem?
For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".
The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on
it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.
If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?
Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I
enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright
bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding
recumbent, which I also enjoy.
There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better
handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike
visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in
my area.
> DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.
Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall
on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish
I had the DF under me.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 03:55:46
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: the question it answered (was Re: The most confortable saddle!)
|
One other huge advantage of riding recumbent is the wide open chest position
(does not apply to "hamster style" bars). The overall view is far superior
to upright, just not directly ahead of the bike. I love, er loved my upright
bikes, until I got my Trike. I ride further, faster, with less fatigue than
ever before. And, no more numb hands, achy neck, sore butt, etc. The biggest
disadvantage... Not being able to "unweight" on the rough stuff. I really do
still love my uprights, I just hardly ever ride them anymore.
Grolsch
"Victor Kan" <victor@usenet.NO_UCEloopdrive.net > wrote in message
news:1JXWg.8864$UE6.3972@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> ...if it works for you, fine, but it really
>> answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
>> fitted upright.
>
> How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
> no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
> answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or solve
> a problem?
>
> For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer distances
> with less effort on the routes I ride without training better, losing 40
> lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".
>
> The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
> upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on it
> than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.
>
> If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
> ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
> average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?
>
> Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I enjoy
> challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright bike riding
> position--it's a different cycling experience than riding recumbent, which
> I also enjoy.
>
> There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better handling
> (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike visibility
> that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in my area.
>
> > DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.
>
> Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall on
> the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish I
> had the DF under me.
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:35:44
From: Grolch
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
Is a recumbent saddle, er, seat.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 06:50:16
From: landotter
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
A drunken college professor mistakenly wrote:
> I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
> thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
> pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
> recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
> you can see the scenery without strain.
Then go out and ride the damn thing instead of propagandizing like
your bearded hippie lot are want to do. Bring some tempeh snacks for
the hills. Don't forget your orange geek flag!
>Great view of traffic too.
Yeah, it's fascinating under a Kenworth tire!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 23:10:51
From: Smokey
Subject: Re: The most confortable saddle!
|
Ken Bradley wrote:
> I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
> thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
> pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
> recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
> you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
> ride much more if your conformable.
I'm glad you found comfort through your recumbent and are riding it a
lot. I'm comfortable on my Lemond with my Brooks saddle and Rivendell
Noodle drop bars. That's the way it should be; no matter what you ride,
you should be comfortable. And as Eddy Merckx said "ride lots".
Smokey
|
|
