| |
Main
Date: 01 Nov 2005 00:30:23
From:
Subject: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
Hi,
I do loaded touring on my regular standard bike (sitting upright,
Brooks saddle, Aero bar) using panniers.
I'm interested in buying a tadpole trike for my next "expedition" being
roughly 4000 mi/6000 km. I'm not interested in recumbents - only
trikes.
My main reason for buying a trike would be the speed increase. But
browsing various forums and newsgroups it turns out that the speed
picture is different.
So I have a question for those who ride both a trike and a regular
bike: Without talking about weight, rolling resistance etc, I would
like to know if you go faster on a trike (with or without panniers).
On my loaded touring bike I go 125mi/200km a day, even in mountains
like the Rockies. Usually I'm only limited by the daylight hours. I
average at 15 mph/24kmh.
I know it's a bit extreme, but it would be cool to go even faster.
Feeling that my power is used efficiently is VERY important to me -
this is why I don't have any bike generators (like the ones in the
front hub) or internal gear hub systems on my touring bike.
I know recumbents and trikes call for a much more relaxed driving style
which eliminates soar etc. But if I ride from dusk til dawn on my
regular touring bike (and not biking when it's dark) I do those 125 mi
averaging 15 mph (loaded with 35 pounds of gear) and that's it. The
values are, of course, without hourly brakes, eating, shopping etc. If
I cannot go faster/longer I will not buy a trike. This is crucial.
I must admit that I'm the stamina type of rider - I don't like to waste
excess energy because I know the wind resistance is squared, so I ride
at 15 mph but for a LONG time. I would adapt this riding style to the
trike.
On my regular bike I usually bike 1 hour, make a 10 min break, ride one
hour, 10 min break, at noon shopping, eating for 1 hour and so forth.
I'm only making breaks to give my butt some rest (it might irritate a
bit) and eating snacks. So, if I could eat snacks while riding the
trike, because I would't get soar at all anymore - it would of course
be interesting.
So what are the experts saying? Can I gain 1-2 mph compared to a
standard bike (we're talking loaded bikes here)?
Thanks in advance, Lucas Jensen
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 01:51:01
From: harpo
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
You sound like a man after my own heart........If you are in a hurry
take the car
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 01:46:23
From: harpo
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
Hi I've just finished a 5400 km tour through western/central Australia,
riding my greenspeed trike.
Reading your message, I would say stick with your DF. You are
definitely faster than a trike. Having said that I wouldn't dream of
touring on paved roads on anything other than my trike, Head up, seeing
everything, and believe or not, much safer than a conventional bike.
If I'm in a hurry I'll take the car.
The only thing wrong with touring on a trike is that it does not handle
rough dirt roads very well.
Being as my next tour will involve riding on such roads, I'll take my
mountain bike, and a bob trailer............have fun Harpo
lucasjensen@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do loaded touring on my regular standard bike (sitting upright,
> Brooks saddle, Aero bar) using panniers.
> I'm interested in buying a tadpole trike for my next "expedition" being
> roughly 4000 mi/6000 km. I'm not interested in recumbents - only
> trikes.
> My main reason for buying a trike would be the speed increase. But
> browsing various forums and newsgroups it turns out that the speed
> picture is different.
> So I have a question for those who ride both a trike and a regular
> bike: Without talking about weight, rolling resistance etc, I would
> like to know if you go faster on a trike (with or without panniers).
>
> On my loaded touring bike I go 125mi/200km a day, even in mountains
> like the Rockies. Usually I'm only limited by the daylight hours. I
> average at 15 mph/24kmh.
> I know it's a bit extreme, but it would be cool to go even faster.
> Feeling that my power is used efficiently is VERY important to me -
> this is why I don't have any bike generators (like the ones in the
> front hub) or internal gear hub systems on my touring bike.
>
> I know recumbents and trikes call for a much more relaxed driving style
> which eliminates soar etc. But if I ride from dusk til dawn on my
> regular touring bike (and not biking when it's dark) I do those 125 mi
> averaging 15 mph (loaded with 35 pounds of gear) and that's it. The
> values are, of course, without hourly brakes, eating, shopping etc. If
> I cannot go faster/longer I will not buy a trike. This is crucial.
>
> I must admit that I'm the stamina type of rider - I don't like to waste
> excess energy because I know the wind resistance is squared, so I ride
> at 15 mph but for a LONG time. I would adapt this riding style to the
> trike.
>
> On my regular bike I usually bike 1 hour, make a 10 min break, ride one
> hour, 10 min break, at noon shopping, eating for 1 hour and so forth.
> I'm only making breaks to give my butt some rest (it might irritate a
> bit) and eating snacks. So, if I could eat snacks while riding the
> trike, because I would't get soar at all anymore - it would of course
> be interesting.
>
> So what are the experts saying? Can I gain 1-2 mph compared to a
> standard bike (we're talking loaded bikes here)?
>
> Thanks in advance, Lucas Jensen
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2005 19:10:19
From: Duram
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
Which is better for this kind of riding (5400 km in roads and dirt roads):
trikes or recumbents? and big city rides
"harpo" <terae1@bigpond.com > wrote in message
news:1132566383.156062.148720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi I've just finished a 5400 km tour through western/central Australia,
> riding my greenspeed trike.
> Reading your message, I would say stick with your DF. You are
> definitely faster than a trike. Having said that I wouldn't dream of
> touring on paved roads on anything other than my trike, Head up, seeing
> everything, and believe or not, much safer than a conventional bike.
> If I'm in a hurry I'll take the car.
> The only thing wrong with touring on a trike is that it does not handle
> rough dirt roads very well.
> Being as my next tour will involve riding on such roads, I'll take my
> mountain bike, and a bob trailer............have fun Harpo
> lucasjensen@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 10:19:03
From: Trikester
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
No masochist is ever going to be happy on a trike. No pain, no pain.
You could make it faster by eliminating some of those 10 minute
recovery-from-the-bike stops, but there'd still be little or no pain.
And you'd still likely be making less than your desired distance at the
end of the day.
If distance is everything, then stay with the DF. Or better yet, go
with a recumbent bike.
If I understand what you are saying correctly, then trikes are just not
for you. The culture shock would be too much. It is just too hard to
keep up the need for speed when you are riding an easy chair. Your
head is up and you start to notice things around you and lose your
focus. Photo ops becon. Flowers beg to be smelled. People want to
talk about your ride and fritter away your time. It would probably
turn from an endurance event to a VACATION! Danger, DANGER!
Leave the trikes to us old people who aren't in a hurry anymore.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2005 19:21:56
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
k Leuck wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130904989.463089.94940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > k Leuck wrote:
> > >
> > > I have yet to see a fast trike[.]
> >
> > See <http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/vector/vector.htm> for a fast
> > trike.
> >
> > Of course the Vector would be practically unusable anywhere outside an
> > oval track or closed highway. :(
>
> I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I've never seen a fast trike,
> I never said they didn't exist. Up until BROL 2005 I never saw a fast
> recumbent either until Reynolds passed me on that faired monstrosity he has
> [.]
Despite the lack of terminal punctuation, I understood what k Leuck
was intending to say. However, I felt like posting the link to the
picture of the Vector since it is a fast trike.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2005 20:51:25
From: DD
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
>>>See <http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/vector/vector.htm> for a fast
>>>trike.
> Despite the lack of terminal punctuation, I understood what k Leuck
> was intending to say. However, I felt like posting the link to the
> picture of the Vector since it is a fast trike.
>
Strangely enough I remember this fossil of past design as coming to
Australia in the mid-1980s. The local hero and newly crowned world track
pursuit champion Steele Bishop got roped in to ride this beast for a 1-
hour record, sponsorship by GMH Holden (a national car maker and
friendly corporate image wannabee). Can't recall the result but long ago
surpassed. Got a mention in a few magazines and newspapers so at least
GMH got happy.
As to touring on a trike or upright, apples and oranges (to quote
another thread that I innocently started). The trike is more capable of
laiden touring but that speaks of carrying loads, if I wanted a light
and fast tour I'd bike it. But for the serious tour I would take the
trike. I've seen many world tourists, Japanese, German, where ever, on
bikes where there's so much packaging and supplies that its hard to see
the frame underneath it all but I can still pack a trike with more and
get off and walk away at any time. Soreness after a long ride can still
occur, it just comes down to style and bad habits (in my previous lives
I was very bad). And sometimes the steed to use for the tour depends on
the countryside, its no use taking a trike if you can't see the scenery
through the hedges or a bike when the blustery afternoon breeze means
you can hardly stay upright (many on ARBR have stopped being
'upright'?). I could keep on many points, we can make a long list of
pros and cons, but this would be pointless. The original thread talked
of an individual style of riding and I think the only way for this rider
to really get the answers is to get out there for a weekend ride on each
setup.
I ride all sorts, including trikes, bikes, recumbents, folders, racers
so have less quibble over what to ride on a given occasion. Sorry if I
offend anyone's sense of pedal-style loyalty with any of my comments
above, not intended.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2005 13:22:17
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
DD <me@u.com > wrote:
> Strangely enough I remember this fossil of past design as coming to
> Australia in the mid-1980s. The local hero and newly crowned world
> track pursuit champion Steele Bishop got roped in to ride this beast
> for a 1- hour record, sponsorship by GMH Holden (a national car maker
> and friendly corporate image wannabee). Can't recall the result but
> long ago surpassed. Got a mention in a few magazines and newspapers
> so at least GMH got happy.
Somewhere in the archives I have a small snippet about Steele Bishop going
for an HPV speed record in a Holden-sponsored machine, but IIRC 'tweren't a
Vector but some locally-built device.
Personally, I'd be quite interested to see just how fast a Vector would go
at Battle Mountain. Especially as its 58.89 mph record at Ontario is only
3.5 mph down on Sam's sea-level record.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
My other motto is in Latin.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2005 13:07:25
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
DD wrote:
> As to touring on a trike or upright, apples and oranges (to quote
> another thread that I innocently started). The trike is more capable of
> laiden touring but that speaks of carrying loads
Up to a point... I can think of a few trikes I've seen that wouldn't do
Big Loads particularly better than a purpose built touring bike like the
Streetmachine. 4 full size panniers is easy enough on a Streetmachine,
less easy on a Windcheetah...
> and fast tour I'd bike it. But for the serious tour I would take the
> trike. I've seen many world tourists, Japanese, German, where ever, on
> bikes where there's so much packaging and supplies that its hard to see
> the frame underneath it all but I can still pack a trike with more and
> get off and walk away at any time.
If you're taking that much then a trailer makes a good deal of sense
whatever you're towing it with.
> pros and cons, but this would be pointless. The original thread talked
> of an individual style of riding and I think the only way for this rider
> to really get the answers is to get out there for a weekend ride on each
> setup.
Yup!
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 20:56:42
From: Capri
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
OK, I don't thinik it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference what
you ride on a tour as long as you are comfortable on the bike and you
enjoy it. From your post, your tour sounds more like work than fun.
125/mi per day. an hour on the bike 10 min off, and hour for lunch.
Gimme a break! Most of the people I have been on bike tours with have
an agenda something like this: Well we really need to travel about 125
miles today and we might just do it if we have a good tailwind and
there is nothing else to do. However if we meet some really neat people
or find a very fine place to stop and only make 30 miles well that
will be just fine too. If you only have a limited amount of time,
take a shorter tour.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 20:16:29
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
k Leuck wrote:
>
> I have yet to see a fast trike[.]
See <http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/vector/vector.htm > for a fast
trike.
Of course the Vector would be practically unusable anywhere outside an
oval track or closed highway. :(
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2005 19:10:28
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1130904989.463089.94940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> k Leuck wrote:
> >
> > I have yet to see a fast trike[.]
>
> See <http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/vector/vector.htm> for a fast
> trike.
>
> Of course the Vector would be practically unusable anywhere outside an
> oval track or closed highway. :(
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I've never seen a fast trike,
I never said they didn't exist. Up until BROL 2005 I never saw a fast
recumbent either until Reynolds passed me on that faired monstrosity he has
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:44:00
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
<lucasjensen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1130833823.555015.265670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I do loaded touring on my regular standard bike (sitting upright,
> Brooks saddle, Aero bar) using panniers.
> I'm interested in buying a tadpole trike for my next "expedition" being
> roughly 4000 mi/6000 km. I'm not interested in recumbents - only
> trikes.
> My main reason for buying a trike would be the speed increase. But
> browsing various forums and newsgroups it turns out that the speed
> picture is different.
> So I have a question for those who ride both a trike and a regular
> bike: Without talking about weight, rolling resistance etc, I would
> like to know if you go faster on a trike (with or without panniers).
I have yet to see a fast trike
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2005 08:43:57
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
k Leuck wrote:
> I have yet to see a fast trike
The Lands End to John O' Groats distance record is held on a
Windcheetah. I guess with 41 hours 4 minutes total time including
breaks the extra stability does start to count for something in an
endurance event like that, and the OP is looking at a big tour.
But overall a trike won't get you many places faster.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:16:00
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
k Leuck wrote:
>
> I have yet to see a fast trike
>
You have evidently not seen one going downhill. As the speed goes up, a
trikes advantages (low drag) overcome it's disadvantages (high rolling
resistance and weight).
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I only road one once but it was FUN. (it's priy advantage)
Rich
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 14:58:22
From:
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
Hi, Lucas:
You'll have to skip the trike. Although you would almost certainly be
more comfortable--and probably enjoy the view and riding experience--if
speed is the most important factor, you will be a bit slower. Almost
all trikes are heavier, have more rolling resistance, and climb hills
more slowly. For hill climbing especially, you'll be hard-pressed to
beat a good upright bike--or a really high end recumbent (think Ti and
carbon). Some recumbent bikes (not trikes) can be very fast,
especially something like a body-socked Gold Rush, but you'd be on two
wheels.
Have you considered slowing down and getting more in touch with the
places through which you ride? Then you can ride whatever is the most
FUN and not worry about the miles so much. A fine gentleman, whose
name I can't recall, kept cutting back on his daily mileage to
experience more closely the land and people around him. He called it
"learning to linger." He believed 30miles a day was about perfect.
Now that's a bit on the short side for most days for me, but the idea
is generally sound. Why turn a bike tour into a job?
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my philosophy these days--always
subject to revision, of course!
Good luck on your search, wherever it leads.
Cheers,
Scott
lucasjensen@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do loaded touring on my regular standard bike (sitting upright,
> Brooks saddle, Aero bar) using panniers.
> I'm interested in buying a tadpole trike for my next "expedition" being
> roughly 4000 mi/6000 km. I'm not interested in recumbents - only
> trikes.
> My main reason for buying a trike would be the speed increase. But
> browsing various forums and newsgroups it turns out that the speed
> picture is different.
> So I have a question for those who ride both a trike and a regular
> bike: Without talking about weight, rolling resistance etc, I would
> like to know if you go faster on a trike (with or without panniers).
>
> On my loaded touring bike I go 125mi/200km a day, even in mountains
> like the Rockies. Usually I'm only limited by the daylight hours. I
> average at 15 mph/24kmh.
> I know it's a bit extreme, but it would be cool to go even faster.
> Feeling that my power is used efficiently is VERY important to me -
> this is why I don't have any bike generators (like the ones in the
> front hub) or internal gear hub systems on my touring bike.
>
> I know recumbents and trikes call for a much more relaxed driving style
> which eliminates soar etc. But if I ride from dusk til dawn on my
> regular touring bike (and not biking when it's dark) I do those 125 mi
> averaging 15 mph (loaded with 35 pounds of gear) and that's it. The
> values are, of course, without hourly brakes, eating, shopping etc. If
> I cannot go faster/longer I will not buy a trike. This is crucial.
>
> I must admit that I'm the stamina type of rider - I don't like to waste
> excess energy because I know the wind resistance is squared, so I ride
> at 15 mph but for a LONG time. I would adapt this riding style to the
> trike.
>
> On my regular bike I usually bike 1 hour, make a 10 min break, ride one
> hour, 10 min break, at noon shopping, eating for 1 hour and so forth.
> I'm only making breaks to give my butt some rest (it might irritate a
> bit) and eating snacks. So, if I could eat snacks while riding the
> trike, because I would't get soar at all anymore - it would of course
> be interesting.
>
> So what are the experts saying? Can I gain 1-2 mph compared to a
> standard bike (we're talking loaded bikes here)?
>
> Thanks in advance, Lucas Jensen
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 09:43:20
From:
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
> Now, a Penninger that weighs in at 20 lbs would be a dream to ride..
I just saw that one of the catbikes is 28 lbs only.
Lucas
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:57:53
From: Nigel Cliffe
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
lucasjensen@gmail.com wrote:
>> Now, a Penninger that weighs in at 20 lbs would be a dream to ride..
>
> I just saw that one of the catbikes is 28 lbs only.
In addition, some of the Trice range might be worth considering, though no
idea if the current low-dollar/strong pound makes them too expensive in the
US. Trice have made a one-off super light test model, but their regular
models are over 30lbs.
On your original point about speed, I think you may have to trade
speed/comfort a little.
The faster trikes I've tried have rigid seat shells, the more comfortable
(particularly cooling!) have mesh.
That said, a Trice Ice-QNT (mesh seat, probably one of the Trice models to
start your inspection) is very quick on a short test run; I was spinning out
of gears on the flat with a very minor tail wind, so would specify it with a
higher top gear than the standard option. I cannot comment on long
distances.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2005 16:41:00
From: James B. Andrews
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
If you want to have a special trike made for you out of carbon fiber
and totally stripped,,, you could beat the time on the upright but
most trikes are just too heavy. Your best speed would probably be on a
tadpole, deltas are just too massive. A Greenspeed or a Cat trike
would be the type to check.
I own a Penninger recumbent trike that weights 53 pounds and it
take a lot of effort to get it to 15-17 miles per hour, My wife can do
that speed on her Penninger for about a mile(flat ground, no wind)
before starting to slow down.. We normally ride along at about 8-10
miles per hour.
Now as for riding time/ riding comfort, my wife and I have ridden 8-10
hours many times with very little discomfort. After a couple of hours
the endorphens kick in and we just don't want to stop.
Now, a Penninger that weighs in at 20 lbs would be a dream to ride..
Anyone else have any comments???
Jim Andrews Columbus Phoenix
On 1 Nov 2005 00:30:23 -0800, lucasjensen@gmail.com wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I do loaded touring on my regular standard bike (sitting upright,
>Brooks saddle, Aero bar) using panniers.
>I'm interested in buying a tadpole trike for my next "expedition" being
>roughly 4000 mi/6000 km. I'm not interested in recumbents - only
>trikes.
>My main reason for buying a trike would be the speed increase. But
>browsing various forums and newsgroups it turns out that the speed
>picture is different.
>So I have a question for those who ride both a trike and a regular
>bike: Without talking about weight, rolling resistance etc, I would
>like to know if you go faster on a trike (with or without panniers).
>
>On my loaded touring bike I go 125mi/200km a day, even in mountains
>like the Rockies. Usually I'm only limited by the daylight hours. I
>average at 15 mph/24kmh.
>I know it's a bit extreme, but it would be cool to go even faster.
>Feeling that my power is used efficiently is VERY important to me -
>this is why I don't have any bike generators (like the ones in the
>front hub) or internal gear hub systems on my touring bike.
>
>I know recumbents and trikes call for a much more relaxed driving style
>which eliminates soar etc. But if I ride from dusk til dawn on my
>regular touring bike (and not biking when it's dark) I do those 125 mi
>averaging 15 mph (loaded with 35 pounds of gear) and that's it. The
>values are, of course, without hourly brakes, eating, shopping etc. If
>I cannot go faster/longer I will not buy a trike. This is crucial.
>
>I must admit that I'm the stamina type of rider - I don't like to waste
>excess energy because I know the wind resistance is squared, so I ride
>at 15 mph but for a LONG time. I would adapt this riding style to the
>trike.
>
>On my regular bike I usually bike 1 hour, make a 10 min break, ride one
>hour, 10 min break, at noon shopping, eating for 1 hour and so forth.
>I'm only making breaks to give my butt some rest (it might irritate a
>bit) and eating snacks. So, if I could eat snacks while riding the
>trike, because I would't get soar at all anymore - it would of course
>be interesting.
>
>So what are the experts saying? Can I gain 1-2 mph compared to a
>standard bike (we're talking loaded bikes here)?
>
>Thanks in advance, Lucas Jensen
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2005 14:09:55
From: Piccolo Pete
Subject: Re: Face to face: Trike vs. standard bike on expedition
|
"James B. Andrews" <dandrew@insight.rr.com > wrote in message
news:ah5fm1d0tuoq9grituhanjff285hb8esf0@4ax.com...
>
> If you want to have a special trike made for you out of carbon fiber
> and totally stripped,,, you could beat the time on the upright but
> most trikes are just too heavy. Your best speed would probably be on a
> tadpole, deltas are just too massive. A Greenspeed or a Cat trike
> would be the type to check.
>
> I own a Penninger recumbent trike that weights 53 pounds and it
> take a lot of effort to get it to 15-17 miles per hour, My wife can do
> that speed on her Penninger for about a mile(flat ground, no wind)
> before starting to slow down.. We normally ride along at about 8-10
> miles per hour.
>
> Now as for riding time/ riding comfort, my wife and I have ridden 8-10
> hours many times with very little discomfort. After a couple of hours
> the endorphens kick in and we just don't want to stop.
>
> Now, a Penninger that weighs in at 20 lbs would be a dream to ride..
>
> Anyone else have any comments???
>
> Jim Andrews Columbus Phoenix
Glad to hear you say you cruise at such a low speed. That is how fast I
usually go on my Penninger. I think I got it up to 25 once or twice, but I
was really huffing and puffing. I enjoy my trike very much and the low
speed is not a big problem for me. I feel like the tortise in the race with
the hare. I may not go fast, but I just keep going :-) And I don't fall
over... and my butt doesn't hurt... and I can pick up coins on the ground
without getting off the thing. Parking is sweet - I just stand up and walk
away.
There are some disadvantages other than the low speed. It can flip without
much effort. The lack of suspension can be a problem in rough terrain. I
have to think ahead when preparing to cross a busy road - making sure I gear
down before stopping so I have good pickup for a quick crossing. It is
difficult to look behind for vehicles sneaking up on me. It is also
dangerous in places like parking lots because it is so low and not visible
when coming out from behind a parked car. Also, it attracts a lot of
attention. I haven't had a big problem with that yet, but I often find
myself thinking that some idiot is gonna throw something at me from a moving
car. But even with all these drawbacks, I wouldn't give it up, unless, as
you say, they make a lighter Penninger...
P2
|
|
