| |
Main
Date: 03 Jun 2007 19:39:41
From: Ed Service
Subject: Canadian Built Trike
|
Hi,
Have any of you seen this trike?
http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-sports-bikes-recumbent-trike-W0QQAdIdZ14520835
Seems to be quite a lot for the money! I wonder about the short wheelbase
though.
Ed
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 17:31:03
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
On Jun 5, 1:17 am, LoGo Trike seller Wayne Leggett wrote:
> DougC ranted:
>
> >The problem I have with tadpole trikes is that I've heard
> >too many stories of trikes spinning under hard braking.
>
> I interpret DougC's use of the word 'spinning' to relate
> to the phenomenon of a vehicle losing traction in a fast
> turn and spinning around its vertical axis, as in an
> race car 'spinout'. This can be a valid concern with
> tadpoles that have a short wheelbase and an extreme front
> bias, but with most contemporary tadpole designs, it's
> really just not likely to be a big issue. Like all other
> vehicles when ridden near their physical limits (perhaps
> most especially bicycles), a tadpole demands from its
> rider some appreciation of the balance between his skill
> and the trike's ultimate capabilities. But from real
> world experiences over a fairly broad database, I have
> to suspect that spinouts are less a problem with the
> tadpoles themselves than with DougC's choice of stories
> to which to listen, perhaps even believe.
>
> Most real-world tadpole 'spinouts' are likely to be more
> a result of unbalanced braking forces, and several newer
> tadpole designs now have steering geometry which corrects
> the tendency of a tadpole to swerve to the side where the
> braking force is higher. This feature makes a tadpole a
> good bit safer during clumsy panic braking.
Most trike "spinouts" I am aware of involve ice (nb: not ICE) and the
deliberate breaking of traction with the rear brake.
> >The wheels usually appear to be positioned to provide
> >50/50 weight distribution between the single rear and
> >the two front tires, and that's just dumb. That makes
> >the trike unsafe during panic stops, and does nothing
> >for the ride quality the rest of the time.
>
> Again, that may appear to be the case, but with a tiny
> bit of online research, you'll find that in fact most
> modern tadpoles have closer to a 65/35 front/rear weight
> distribution. If I understand DougC, I think he would
> believe that this 'real world' spec is actually worse
> than the 50/50 he postulates. Far from being dumb,
> however, that's a key factor in making the trike less
> likely to tip in tight turns. The tipping axis of any
> trike is almost always a line between its two outboard
> wheels. All else being relatively equal, the closer the
> longitudinal (fore and aft) cg of a trike is to its
> two-wheeled axle - i.e., the front on a tadpole - the
> better it will resist laterally angled g-forces that
> might make it roll over. Tom's reference to the old
> MASA Slingshot is spot on!
The primary credit should to occasional (and former regular)
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent poster Jeff Wills.
> Given two similar designs with the same wheelbase, I
> also think a tadpole with more forward weight bias will
> most likely have a better ride quality on rough roads,
> since big bumps hitting the rear wheel are moderated by
> a longer lever arm. The roll twisting forces of bumps on
> front wheels are much less bothersome to most trikeys
> than the more direct vertical hits from the center rear
> wheel.
This is not my general experience; however, my trike has rear
suspension. I believe Wayne is correct for unsuspended tadpole trikes.
> >So which is safer in use? The 50/50 or the rear-biased?
> >The rear-biased design is.
>
> Sorry, DougC, but... IMNSHO, for almost all riders in
> almost all non-competitive situations, the contemporary
> front-biased tadpole design takes the prize. Resistance
> to low-speed tipovers, relative ease of transport, and
> optimal maneuverability win first prize. I don't think
> we'll be seeing a return to those LWB tadpoles of the
> early 1980s.
>
> All vehicle designs are the result of a series of tough
> engineering compromises. All else equal, of course longer
> wheelbase vehicles are harder to put into a spinout. They
> are also harder to maneuver and require more extreme front
> wheel angles for the same turn radius as an SWB design.
> They're harder to fit into automotive carriers, garages
> and such. With a contemporary recumbent tadpole chassis,
> iif a designer were to merely move the front wheels to the
> front, extending the wheelbase but not the overall cycle
> length, I think it would be very hard to maintain chassis
> stiffness, turn radius and pedal clearance.
>
> As an aside, IMNSHO, the other type of 'spinning' is
> really more likely to be noticed on a tadpole. With most
> of them a strong rider can easily spin the rear tire
> while climbing a steep slope with limited traction, since
> only about 35 to 40% of the vehicle's total weight is on
> its driving wheel. But during hard braking almost all of
> the trike's and rider's weight is on the front wheels
> where the brakes are located. I have never ridden any
> other vehicle that has the ultimate braking capability
> of a typical tadpole. And frankly, while I personally
> think that's a good thing, it does mean that on most
> disc-braked tadpoles - other than tandems - the rider can
> lift the rear wheel with a panicked hard grab for his
> brake levers. Of course it's a little tricky to control
> any cycle riding only on two wheels mounted side-by-side,
> but the level of deceleration at which that occurs is
> one a cyclist on a conventional two-wheeled bike will
> find only in his fantasies.
On asphaltic concrete, I can generally lock both front wheels on
Dragonflyer before the rear wheel lifts. Lifting the rear wheel
requires broom finished Portland cement concrete pavement.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 23:17:48
From: 32GO
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
DougC ranted:
>The problem I have with tadpole trikes is that I've heard
>too many stories of trikes spinning under hard braking.
I interpret DougC's use of the word 'spinning' to relate
to the phenomenon of a vehicle losing traction in a fast
turn and spinning around its vertical axis, as in an
race car 'spinout'. This can be a valid concern with
tadpoles that have a short wheelbase and an extreme front
bias, but with most contemporary tadpole designs, it's
really just not likely to be a big issue. Like all other
vehicles when ridden near their physical limits (perhaps
most especially bicycles), a tadpole demands from its
rider some appreciation of the balance between his skill
and the trike's ultimate capabilities. But from real
world experiences over a fairly broad database, I have
to suspect that spinouts are less a problem with the
tadpoles themselves than with DougC's choice of stories
to which to listen, perhaps even believe.
Most real-world tadpole 'spinouts' are likely to be more
a result of unbalanced braking forces, and several newer
tadpole designs now have steering geometry which corrects
the tendency of a tadpole to swerve to the side where the
braking force is higher. This feature makes a tadpole a
good bit safer during clumsy panic braking.
>The wheels usually appear to be positioned to provide
>50/50 weight distribution between the single rear and
>the two front tires, and that's just dumb. That makes
>the trike unsafe during panic stops, and does nothing
>for the ride quality the rest of the time.
Again, that may appear to be the case, but with a tiny
bit of online research, you'll find that in fact most
modern tadpoles have closer to a 65/35 front/rear weight
distribution. If I understand DougC, I think he would
believe that this 'real world' spec is actually worse
than the 50/50 he postulates. Far from being dumb,
however, that's a key factor in making the trike less
likely to tip in tight turns. The tipping axis of any
trike is almost always a line between its two outboard
wheels. All else being relatively equal, the closer the
longitudinal (fore and aft) cg of a trike is to its
two-wheeled axle - i.e., the front on a tadpole - the
better it will resist laterally angled g-forces that
might make it roll over. Tom's reference to the old
MASA Slingshot is spot on!
Given two similar designs with the same wheelbase, I
also think a tadpole with more forward weight bias will
most likely have a better ride quality on rough roads,
since big bumps hitting the rear wheel are moderated by
a longer lever arm. The roll twisting forces of bumps on
front wheels are much less bothersome to most trikeys
than the more direct vertical hits from the center rear
wheel.
>So which is safer in use? The 50/50 or the rear-biased?
>The rear-biased design is.
Sorry, DougC, but... IMNSHO, for almost all riders in
almost all non-competitive situations, the contemporary
front-biased tadpole design takes the prize. Resistance
to low-speed tipovers, relative ease of transport, and
optimal maneuverability win first prize. I don't think
we'll be seeing a return to those LWB tadpoles of the
early 1980s.
All vehicle designs are the result of a series of tough
engineering compromises. All else equal, of course longer
wheelbase vehicles are harder to put into a spinout. They
are also harder to maneuver and require more extreme front
wheel angles for the same turn radius as an SWB design.
They're harder to fit into automotive carriers, garages
and such. With a contemporary recumbent tadpole chassis,
iif a designer were to merely move the front wheels to the
front, extending the wheelbase but not the overall cycle
length, I think it would be very hard to maintain chassis
stiffness, turn radius and pedal clearance.
As an aside, IMNSHO, the other type of 'spinning' is
really more likely to be noticed on a tadpole. With most
of them a strong rider can easily spin the rear tire
while climbing a steep slope with limited traction, since
only about 35 to 40% of the vehicle's total weight is on
its driving wheel. But during hard braking almost all of
the trike's and rider's weight is on the front wheels
where the brakes are located. I have never ridden any
other vehicle that has the ultimate braking capability
of a typical tadpole. And frankly, while I personally
think that's a good thing, it does mean that on most
disc-braked tadpoles - other than tandems - the rider can
lift the rear wheel with a panicked hard grab for his
brake levers. Of course it's a little tricky to control
any cycle riding only on two wheels mounted side-by-side,
but the level of deceleration at which that occurs is
one a cyclist on a conventional two-wheeled bike will
find only in his fantasies.
Regards,
Wayne Leggett
3-2-GO
The Trike Shop
Ventura CA
Email: wayne@32go.us
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 17:40:39
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
On Jun 4, 3:52 am, Edward Dolan wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote in messagenews:1180913377.664640.84770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 3:09 pm, DougC wrote:
> >> Ed Service wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > Have any of you seen this trike?
> >> >http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-sports-bikes-recumbent-trik...
>
> >> > Seems to be quite a lot for the money! I wonder about the short
> >> > wheelbase though.
> >> > Ed
>
> >> I agree, wheelbase looks way too short.
>
> >> I've not owned one, but it seems to me that trike wheelbases should be
> >> /longer/ than usual, not shorter.
>
> > It would appear to be relatively easy to bash the crank and/or
> > chainring guard into the ground during hard braking.
>
> Totally nuts of course. If you are into that kind of hard breaking, get thee
> to an asylum for the mentally retarded.
Never had to make an emergency stop, Ed?
> > The long, relatively small diameter boom could also lead to poor
> > sprinting and climbing due to excessive flexure, not to mention
> > significant "pedal steer".
>
> Nonsense! Trikes never go fast in any event. They are designed for leisurely
> cruising, something that Tom Sherman would not know anything about. He is a
> speed freak. I assure you, you do not ever want to be like him. However,
> pedal steer is endemic to all tadpoles, no matter their other design
> configurations....
Dragonflyer [1] is steady at 70+ kph as long as one is not "ham-
handed" with the steering, and the front wheels will lock before the
rear wheel lifts. Dragonflyer does not have a rear brake to skid the
rear wheel. Pedal steer is minimal with good pedaling technique, but
quite noticeable with poor technique.
I would only consider a rear brake as a drag brake on a tandem trike
or heavily loaded single touring trike, since the rear wheel is much
more heavily loaded in these cases.
[1] <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df1a.jpg >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 21:42:31
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1181004039.349755.222290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 3:52 am, Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote in
>> messagenews:1180913377.664640.84770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>> > On Jun 3, 3:09 pm, DougC wrote:
>> >> Ed Service wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Have any of you seen this trike?
>> >> >http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-sports-bikes-recumbent-trik...
>>
>> >> > Seems to be quite a lot for the money! I wonder about the short
>> >> > wheelbase though.
>> >> > Ed
>>
>> >> I agree, wheelbase looks way too short.
>>
>> >> I've not owned one, but it seems to me that trike wheelbases should be
>> >> /longer/ than usual, not shorter.
>>
>> > It would appear to be relatively easy to bash the crank and/or
>> > chainring guard into the ground during hard braking.
>>
>> Totally nuts of course. If you are into that kind of hard braking, get
>> thee
>> to an asylum for the mentally retarded.
>
> Never had to make an emergency stop, Ed?
Yes, but I am always going so slow that there is plenty of time to stop.
>> > The long, relatively small diameter boom could also lead to poor
>> > sprinting and climbing due to excessive flexure, not to mention
>> > significant "pedal steer".
>>
>> Nonsense! Trikes never go fast in any event. They are designed for
>> leisurely
>> cruising, something that Tom Sherman would not know anything about. He is
>> a
>> speed freak. I assure you, you do not ever want to be like him. However,
>> pedal steer is endemic to all tadpoles, no matter their other design
>> configurations....
>
> Dragonflyer [1] is steady at 70+ kph as long as one is not "ham-
> handed" with the steering, and the front wheels will lock before the
> rear wheel lifts. Dragonflyer does not have a rear brake to skid the
> rear wheel. Pedal steer is minimal with good pedaling technique, but
> quite noticeable with poor technique.
"However,
>> pedal steer is endemic to all tadpoles, no matter their other design
>> configurations.... " - Ed Dolan
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:09:25
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
Ed Service wrote:
> Hi,
> Have any of you seen this trike?
> http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-sports-bikes-recumbent-trike-W0QQAdIdZ14520835
>
> Seems to be quite a lot for the money! I wonder about the short
> wheelbase though.
> Ed
I agree, wheelbase looks way too short.
I've not owned one, but it seems to me that trike wheelbases should be
/longer/ than usual, not shorter.
~
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 03:31:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:DdF8i.37$rQ2.32@newsfe12.lga...
> Ed Service wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Have any of you seen this trike?
>> http://saintjohn.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-sports-bikes-recumbent-trike-W0QQAdIdZ14520835
>> Seems to be quite a lot for the money! I wonder about the short wheelbase
>> though.
>> Ed
>
> I agree, wheelbase looks way too short.
>
> I've not owned one, but it seems to me that trike wheelbases should be
> /longer/ than usual, not shorter.
Wheelbase does not matter on a tadpole trike. Further, $850. for a recumbent
trike is a steal as most of these contraptions cost well over $2000.
Frankly, I like the looks of it a lot. I especially like the low crank. Most
trikes have way too high a crank these days.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jun 2007 05:18:07
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Wheelbase does not matter on a tadpole trike. Further, $850. for a recumbent
> trike is a steal as most of these contraptions cost well over $2000.
> Frankly, I like the looks of it a lot. I especially like the low crank. Most
> trikes have way too high a crank these days.
>
The problem I have with tadpole trikes is that I've heard too many
stories of trikes spinning under hard braking. The wheels usually appear
to be positioned to provide 50/50 weight distribution between the single
rear and the two front tires, and that's just dumb. That makes the trike
unsafe during panic stops, and does nothing for the ride quality the
rest of the time.
The only reason any vehicle really NEEDS to have 50/50 front/rear weight
distribution is if it is a vehicle that will be *drifted*. Are tadpole
trikes ever used this way? Are recumbents even used this way? Not by
anyone I've ever heard. MTB's are used this way, maybe an off-road
recumbent would be.... but not any bicycle regularly used on pavement.
So which is safer in use? The 50/50 or the rear-biased? The rear-biased
design is. The reason is because if the REAR tires break loose first in
a hard turn, the FRONT tires are still capable of contributing some
steering input to guiding the vehicle. And on a two-wheel bicycle of ANY
kind, if your front wheel begins to slide, you cannot steer to even
balance at all! So it is better to engineer the bicycle with most of the
weight on the rear tire, so that the rear tire slides out first when
cornering in a low-traction situation. If the rear tire slides out a
bit, the rider can still maintain control if the front tire still has
some traction--but if the front tire begins to slide, the bicyclist
cannot steer or balance at all, and is much more likely to crash.
Resolved: there is simply NO benefit to engineering a road-use bicycle
with 50/50 F/R weight distribution.
What trike makers would do if they weren't such ignorant retardates is
shift the front wheels forward 8 to 12 inches on ALL their models. This
would do two things--first it would do a lot to help prevent the trikes
from pivoting forward during braking and hitting the chainrings on the
ground. Second thing it would do is make the steering armatures longer
as well (the same distance that the wheels are shifted forward) which
would allow more-precise steering control, and make the trikes more
spin-resistant under hard braking.
~
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2007 21:51:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Canadian Built Trike
|
"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:gFR8i.48$GQ5.44@newsfe03.lga...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> Wheelbase does not matter on a tadpole trike. Further, $850. for a
>> recumbent trike is a steal as most of these contraptions cost well over
>> $2000. Frankly, I like the looks of it a lot. I especially like the low
>> crank. Most trikes have way too high a crank these days.
>>
>
> The problem I have with tadpole trikes is that I've heard too many stories
> of trikes spinning under hard braking. The wheels usually appear to be
> positioned to provide 50/50 weight distribution between the single rear
> and the two front tires, and that's just dumb. That makes the trike unsafe
> during panic stops, and does nothing for the ride quality the rest of the
> time.
>
> The only reason any vehicle really NEEDS to have 50/50 front/rear weight
> distribution is if it is a vehicle that will be *drifted*. Are tadpole
> trikes ever used this way? Are recumbents even used this way? Not by
> anyone I've ever heard. MTB's are used this way, maybe an off-road
> recumbent would be.... but not any bicycle regularly used on pavement.
>
> So which is safer in use? The 50/50 or the rear-biased? The rear-biased
> design is. The reason is because if the REAR tires break loose first in a
> hard turn, the FRONT tires are still capable of contributing some steering
> input to guiding the vehicle. And on a two-wheel bicycle of ANY kind, if
> your front wheel begins to slide, you cannot steer to even balance at all!
> So it is better to engineer the bicycle with most of the weight on the
> rear tire, so that the rear tire slides out first when cornering in a
> low-traction situation. If the rear tire slides out a bit, the rider can
> still maintain control if the front tire still has some traction--but if
> the front tire begins to slide, the bicyclist cannot steer or balance at
> all, and is much more likely to crash.
>
> Resolved: there is simply NO benefit to engineering a road-use bicycle
> with 50/50 F/R weight distribution.
>
> What trike makers would do if they weren't such ignorant retardates is
> shift the front wheels forward 8 to 12 inches on ALL their models. This
> would do two things--first it would do a lot to help prevent the trikes
> from pivoting forward during braking and hitting the chainrings on the
> ground. Second thing it would do is make the steering armatures longer as
> well (the same distance that the wheels are shifted forward) which would
> allow more-precise steering control, and make the trikes more
> spin-resistant under hard braking.
I am not concerned with braking a bike or trike. I am only concerned with
getting them going and keeping them going. It has been my experience that
none of them are worth a damn going up a hill. You only need to worry about
braking if you are going down a hill too fast.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
|
