I'm Dyin' to try..

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Jun 2005 20:41:29
From: db.
Subject: I'm Dyin' to try..

hello everyone

I've been researching delta and tadpoles for some time now, and I'll
admit I'm leaning toward the tadpole concept.
I realize that even the manufacturing sites say some technique is
involved, but I don't see the big deal, it's technique, not rare talent.
I'm 6'6" with an "x-seam" of nearly 50", if I did it right(a 36"
inseam). There's no one in my area that sell tadpoles or any kind of
`bent rider for that matter and the more I research the more I'm itchin'
to try one. I'm in the Albany, NY area the nearest retailer is 2½ hours
out.
I'm not completely in the dark on cycling I've owned racers and
mountain bikes since I can remember and I'm quickly becoming a fan.

On another note there will be a meet in western NY in August.

http://www.bentrideronline.com/bentride/nyevent.htm

I'm hoping that will quell my curiosity.

Thanks for reading.

I'm hoping to meet some people out there who can teach me a thing or 2.

db.

Date: 16 Jun 2005 13:40:41
From: nj_diver
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Ed is nothing but a troll....something I would never look at or reply
to twice. He's an A-hole of the highest order but aren't all trolls?
Just glad that I don't run into many a-holes like Ed in the real world.
When I do I just shoot them through the head and keep on going.

And you've got that right about life being too short.

Date: 16 Jun 2005 17:31:20
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"nj_diver" <modiver@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1118954441.712094.277590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ed is nothing but a troll....something I would never look at or reply
> to twice. He's an A-hole of the highest order but aren't all trolls?
> Just glad that I don't run into many a-holes like Ed in the real world.
> When I do I just shoot them through the head and keep on going.
>
> And you've got that right about life being too short.

Here is the atypical ARBR cyclist. He is just barely literate and his only
emotion is one of wanting to commit violence. He is what is known as a
redneck and it is a separate culture in the US of A to be found mainly in
the South, in some rural areas and in the Inner City. There is not much to
be said for it except that it keeps you poor and stupid all your life.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 02:01:50
From: nj_diver
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Get a helmet type rear view mirror and bolt it to your helmet if
necessary.
Those rear view mirrors that attach to the trike frame are worthless."

Guess I wasn't specific enough about the mirrors.....2 mirrors = 1 on
the bike and 1 on my helmet.

"Trikes are NEVER faster than a road bike".....You are wrong about that
statement (I'm sure not the first time or the last time, for that
matter).

You're another know-it-all but actually know nothing at all.

Date: 14 Jun 2005 20:10:22
From: ___________
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"nj_diver" <modiver@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1118739710.096387.131140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "Get a helmet type rear view mirror and bolt it to your helmet if
> necessary.
> Those rear view mirrors that attach to the trike frame are worthless."
>
> Guess I wasn't specific enough about the mirrors.....2 mirrors = 1 on
> the bike and 1 on my helmet.
>
> "Trikes are NEVER faster than a road bike".....You are wrong about that
> statement (I'm sure not the first time or the last time, for that
> matter).
>
> You're another know-it-all but actually know nothing at all.

Yep. Even the new-and-improved Ed still doesn't understand the purpose of
dialogue. Plonk and move on. Life is too short to worry about know-it-alls
like him.

Date: 14 Jun 2005 18:06:25
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"___________" <__@____.___ > wrote in message
news:OQGre.59010$xm3.9319@attbi_s21...
> "nj_diver" <modiver@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1118739710.096387.131140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "Get a helmet type rear view mirror and bolt it to your helmet if
>> necessary.
>> Those rear view mirrors that attach to the trike frame are worthless."
>>
>> Guess I wasn't specific enough about the mirrors.....2 mirrors = 1 on
>> the bike and 1 on my helmet.
>>
>> "Trikes are NEVER faster than a road bike".....You are wrong about that
>> statement (I'm sure not the first time or the last time, for that
>> matter).
>>
>> You're another know-it-all but actually know nothing at all.
>
> Yep. Even the new-and-improved Ed still doesn't understand the purpose of
> dialogue. Plonk and move on. Life is too short to worry about
> know-it-alls like him.

I see that the brainless blank line is still with us. Please, why don't you
try to be even more anonymous. Do not post at all and that will solve your
anonymity problem once and for all. Try to disappear altogether why don't
you?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 04:19:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"nj_diver" <modiver@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1118739710.096387.131140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "Get a helmet type rear view mirror and bolt it to your helmet if
> necessary.
> Those rear view mirrors that attach to the trike frame are worthless."
>
> Guess I wasn't specific enough about the mirrors.....2 mirrors = 1 on
> the bike and 1 on my helmet.

All you need is one mirror on your helmet. Your head swivels doesn't it?

> "Trikes are NEVER faster than a road bike"

.....You are wrong about that
> statement (I'm sure not the first time or the last time, for that
> matter).
>
> You're another know-it-all but actually know nothing at all.

If you only read me in part it is easy to come to that conclusion. But if
you read me whole, there is no doubt whatsoever that I do in fact know
everything. I take no credit for this. I was born a genius and I just got
ster and ster as I got older. I am now one with the immortal gods, but
it is not necessary to worship me as I am not a jealous god like the Jewish
and Christian God.

Ed Dolan the All-Knowing - Minnesota

Date: 13 Jun 2005 10:53:20
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

I live in White Plains which is not close to you at all.

I traveled to yland to Mt. Airy Bikes in order to test ride trikes. They
have a large inventory and if you go when they are not busy they will set
them up for you and send you out on a mile long test ride.

There is also a shop in southern NJ and one in PA but I haven't spoken with
either one about their test ride policy or stock situation.

If you can plan a trip to the DC area either for business or as a tourist (I
have friends down there and my son had a school trip so I managed to
dovetail it all together) then I think Mt. Airy is your best bet. Their URL
is www.bike123.com

Best of luck.

Jeff
"db." <db823@go.com > wrote in message
news:ZVmqe.3706$g5.258@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> hello everyone
>
> I've been researching delta and tadpoles for some time now, and I'll
> admit I'm leaning toward the tadpole concept.
> I realize that even the manufacturing sites say some technique is
> involved, but I don't see the big deal, it's technique, not rare talent.
> I'm 6'6" with an "x-seam" of nearly 50", if I did it right(a 36" inseam).
> There's no one in my area that sell tadpoles or any kind of `bent rider
> for that matter and the more I research the more I'm itchin' to try one.
> I'm in the Albany, NY area the nearest retailer is 2½ hours out.
> I'm not completely in the dark on cycling I've owned racers and mountain
> bikes since I can remember and I'm quickly becoming a fan.
>
> On another note there will be a meet in western NY in August.
>
> http://www.bentrideronline.com/bentride/nyevent.htm
>
> I'm hoping that will quell my curiosity.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> I'm hoping to meet some people out there who can teach me a thing or 2.
>
>
> db.

Date: 11 Jun 2005 03:40:41
From: nj_diver
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

I can whole-heartedly second everything that ________ said about the
tadpole trike. I just bought a second-hand Catrike Speed myself this
past week but unlike _______ I'm a tadpole trike commuter. It would
be nice to have an extra pair of eyes on the back of my head but I
guess 2 rearview mirrors (+ a 6' safety flag) will have to do.

Have it less than a week and already I find that I'm faster on it
(consistently) than I ever was on my Cannondale wedgie. Best cycling
$1600 I've ever spent.

> Hey db,
>
> I'm currently on my second tadpole trike, a 2004 Catrike Speed. I bought it
> from Calhoun Cycle in Minneapolis, MN, without a test ride. The re-assembly
> was no problem; but I did have a few issues with some details. For
> instance, the front wheel spoke tension is very low (need to get that
> fixed). Calhoun is a great dealership, which I highly recommend, BTW.
>
> Though it's a beautiful design, I wasn't sure about the Speed at first. I
> was pretty slow on it while I was building up "recumbent muscles." Handling
> is "thrilling." That is to say, very sensitive, with noticeable pedal steer
> and obvious brake steer (exacerbated by very powerful Avid disc brakes).
> You don't so much steer the Speed as you think about turning, and it goes
> there. Any more effort than that and you'll probably flip the thing. I kid
> you not. I had it on two wheels numerous times in the first few days of
> riding. For several weeks, I wasn't comfortable at speeds over about 20mph.
> BTW: The headrest is a must-have, especially the new suspended version.
> I'll be buying one of those soon. The unsuspended one can be pretty jarring.
>
> Now that I've logged some miles on the Speed, I feel more comfortable and
> safe than I felt at first. I'm definitely faster now - very fast, in fact.
> I find myself spinning out in top gear on occasion, and still feel confident
> at that speed (though I am very careful). I still won't ride on streets
> with any traffic to speak of. I haul the trike around in my hatchback,
> preferring to ride on paved bike paths, in big empty parking lots and in new
> housing developments (before the houses are built = no traffic). There are,
> of course, intrepid tadpole trike commuters out there; but I won't be
> joining their ranks. I value my life more than that.
>
> Though the Speed is even more thrilling than I had imagined (read:
> white-knuckle ride), it is a helluva lot of fun. It really is like a
> 3-wheeled pedal-powered go-kart in many ways. The brakes work *very* well if
> you ever get going faster than you'd like. You just have to be careful to
> apply them evenly. I'm getting to where I can do emergency stops from high
> speeds very well, with minimal back-and-forth twitching (from uneven brake
> application/modulation). My first tadpole trike had a single lever to
> control both brakes, which worked pretty well. This one, you gotta watch how
> you apply the stoppers.
>
> That being said, there's nothing like a tadpole trike if you like to cruise
> along gazing up at the trees and the clouds, with no worries about falling
> over. I love to find big open stretches of pavement (sans cars), and just
> stare at the sky while pedalling at a leisurely pace. It makes stress melt
> away. It's wonderful relaxation therapy, and a gentle workout all in one.
> Can't beat it. It makes me think that cross-country touring might be a
> great experience if I could find a suitably safe route.
>
> See if you can find a trike owner in your area to give you a test ride. I
> think you'll be very happy with a tadpole trike.

Date: 12 Jun 2005 01:40:36
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"nj_diver" <modiver@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1118486441.868797.262450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I can whole-heartedly second everything that ________ said about the
> tadpole trike. I just bought a second-hand Catrike Speed myself this
> past week but unlike _______ I'm a tadpole trike commuter. It would
> be nice to have an extra pair of eyes on the back of my head but I
> guess 2 rearview mirrors (+ a 6' safety flag) will have to do.

Get a helmet type rear view mirror and bolt it to your helmet if necessary.
Those rear view mirrors that attach to the trike frame are worthless.

> Have it less than a week and already I find that I'm faster on it
> (consistently) than I ever was on my Cannondale wedgie. Best cycling
> $1600 I've ever spent.

So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a road
bike (everything else being equal of course).

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 13 Jun 2005 14:49:46
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan wrote:

> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a road
> bike (everything else being equal of course).

Except when they are, of course. Andy Wilkinson beat his own Lands End
to John O'Groats record that he'd set on a road bike on a Windcheetah
'bent trike, so that rules out differences in the rider and the course.

But why let mere facts get in the way? You never have before...

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: 13 Jun 2005 15:19:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:3h5h30Ffas8hU1@individual.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a road
>> bike (everything else being equal of course).
>
> Except when they are, of course. Andy Wilkinson beat his own Lands End to
> John O'Groats record that he'd set on a road bike on a Windcheetah 'bent
> trike, so that rules out differences in the rider and the course.
>
> But why let mere facts get in the way? You never have before...

Trikes will ALWAYS be slower than road bikes. This is just common sense
which everyone knows to be true - except for those poor benighted souls who
have spent several thousand getting a trike hoping and praying that they
will be fast. There are none so deluded as those who have spent the big
bucks.

I would not mind having a Windcheetah myself, but I KNOW I would not be
faster on it than I would be on ANY road bike. Just how foolish can you get?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 00:09:58
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a road
>>> bike (everything else being equal of course).
>>
>> Except when they are, of course. Andy Wilkinson beat his own Lands End to
>> John O'Groats record that he'd set on a road bike on a Windcheetah 'bent
>> trike, so that rules out differences in the rider and the course.
>>
>> But why let mere facts get in the way? You never have before...
>
> Trikes will ALWAYS be slower than road bikes. This is just common sense
> which everyone knows to be true - except for those poor benighted souls
> who have spent several thousand getting a trike hoping and praying that
> they will be fast. There are none so deluded as those who have spent the
> big bucks.

And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.

-Zenin

Date: 14 Jun 2005 01:24:54
From: Slugger
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

In article <1118706947.927415@news.rhps.org >, Zenin <zenin@rhps.org>
wrote:

> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
> > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a road
> >>> bike (everything else being equal of course).
> >>
> >> Except when they are, of course. Andy Wilkinson beat his own Lands End to
> >> John O'Groats record that he'd set on a road bike on a Windcheetah 'bent
> >> trike, so that rules out differences in the rider and the course.
> >>
> >> But why let mere facts get in the way? You never have before...
> >
> > Trikes will ALWAYS be slower than road bikes. This is just common sense
> > which everyone knows to be true - except for those poor benighted souls
> > who have spent several thousand getting a trike hoping and praying that
> > they will be fast. There are none so deluded as those who have spent the
> > big bucks.
>
> And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.
>
> -Zenin

Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
slack.

Date: 14 Jun 2005 11:22:36
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Slugger wrote:

> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
> slack.

He seems to think he's one himself... oh, hang on... see what you mean! ;-)

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: 14 Jun 2005 18:00:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:3h7pfbFfp2gfU2@individual.net...
> Slugger wrote:
>
>> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
>> slack.
>
> He seems to think he's one himself... oh, hang on... see what you mean!
> ;-)
>
> Pete.

Although Mr. Sherman of the Quad Cities has seemingly left this group (for
greener pastures let us hope), I see that his fellow jackasses are still
with us braying and making funny donkey noises. Slugger and Peter Clinch of
Dundee, Scotland - what did I ever do to deserve these two stooges.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 01:31:28
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Slugger" <upyer@bumbum.com > wrote in message
news:130620051824488717%upyer@bumbum.com...
> In article <1118706947.927415@news.rhps.org>, Zenin <zenin@rhps.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>> > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >>> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a
>> >>> road
>> >>> bike (everything else being equal of course).
>> >>
>> >> Except when they are, of course. Andy Wilkinson beat his own Lands
>> >> End to
>> >> John O'Groats record that he'd set on a road bike on a Windcheetah
>> >> 'bent
>> >> trike, so that rules out differences in the rider and the course.
>> >>
>> >> But why let mere facts get in the way? You never have before...
>> >
>> > Trikes will ALWAYS be slower than road bikes. This is just common sense
>> > which everyone knows to be true - except for those poor benighted souls
>> > who have spent several thousand getting a trike hoping and praying that
>> > they will be fast. There are none so deluded as those who have spent
>> > the
>> > big bucks.
>>
>> And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.
>>
>> -Zenin
>
> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
> slack.

Aerodynamics is the ONLY advantage that a recumbent has over an upright when
it comes to speed. But what does aerodynamics have to do with going UP a
hill?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 19:35:52
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> "Slugger" <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:
>> Zenin <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.
>>>
>> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
>> slack.
>
> Aerodynamics is the ONLY advantage that a recumbent has over an upright
> when it comes to speed. But what does aerodynamics have to do with going
> UP a hill?

Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down as
they say. That said...

The main advantage wedgies have up hills is weight ('bents are generally
more complex thus higher weight...although the smaller wheels can save
some), but comparing a modern wedgie to a modern SWB 'bent the weight
advantage isn't huge (significant, but not overwhelming...a few pounds
at most). For a trike however, it gets very hard to not add significant
weight as well as rolling and drive train resistance (but again, smaller
wheels can help and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect
for stability).

Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument really
doesn't hold well.

Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's legs
don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to this that
the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on a high BB
design.

Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns w/o
any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.

Add it all up and "the ONLY advantage that a" wedgie has over a 'bent is
going up very steep hills (with low wind). Moderate hills they are
about even, while down hill and flats the 'bent will just destroy the
wedgie. If you add much of any headwind and the 'bent starts looking
very good even on steep hills.

Oh yah, there's also the advantages of no neck/back ache, still being
able to spawn children some day, and of course a nice tight r-butt. :-D

-Zenin

Date: 16 Jun 2005 10:33:00
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Zenin wrote:
> and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect for
> stability).

You don't with two wheels either. The effect of gyroscopic forces on the
stability of a bicycle is negligible.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
Every establishment needs an opposition.

Date: 16 Jun 2005 18:38:58
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote:
> Zenin wrote:
>> and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect for stability).
>
> You don't with two wheels either. The effect of gyroscopic forces on the
> stability of a bicycle is negligible.

Get on your bicycle, both feet on the pedels. Don't start riding
forward, just hold the brakes on and try to balance. After you've
fallen over, come back here and let us know how many seconds you managed
to stay upright with that "negligible" effect of gyroscopic force.

Same fun of course can be had on a static trainer. While there are a
few people who can hold a bike upright w/o gyroscopic forces assisting,
most of them work in the circus.

-Zenin

Date: 17 Jun 2005 11:40:46
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Zenin wrote:
> Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Zenin wrote:
>>> and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect for
>>> stability).
>>
>> You don't with two wheels either. The effect of gyroscopic forces
>> on the stability of a bicycle is negligible.
>
> Get on your bicycle, both feet on the pedels. Don't start riding
> forward, just hold the brakes on and try to balance. After you've
> fallen over, come back here and let us know how many seconds you
> managed to stay upright with that "negligible" effect of
> gyroscopic force.

If the gyroscopic effects of bicycle wheels had /any/ significant effect on
the ability of one to balance a bicycle, then contriving a pair of wheels
that were off the ground, rotating in the opposite direction to the road
wheels, would result in an unridable machine.

David Jones did precisely this when trying to build an unridable bicycle.
It was easily ridable.

QED.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
The onward interchange factor will be unity except for journeys to
Chesham, Croxley or Watford.

Date: 17 Jun 2005 18:00:18
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote:
> Zenin wrote:
>> Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> Zenin wrote:
>>>> and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect for
>>>> stability).
>>>
>>> You don't with two wheels either. The effect of gyroscopic forces
>>> on the stability of a bicycle is negligible.
>>
>> Get on your bicycle, both feet on the pedels. Don't start riding
>> forward, just hold the brakes on and try to balance. After you've
>> fallen over, come back here and let us know how many seconds you
>> managed to stay upright with that "negligible" effect of gyroscopic
>> force.
>
> If the gyroscopic effects of bicycle wheels had /any/ significant effect
> on the ability of one to balance a bicycle, then contriving a pair of
> wheels that were off the ground, rotating in the opposite direction to the
> road wheels, would result in an unridable machine.
>
> David Jones did precisely this when trying to build an unridable bicycle.
> It was easily ridable.
>
> QED.

A) Jones only countered the front wheel, not both wheels. -Which seems
an odd oversight, but he's ster then I and must have had his
reasons. The fact is however, he did not do "precisely" what you
claim he did. Pick your words more carefully if you don't intend to
actually read the works you site.

B) The bike would collapse instantly when goast ridden.

C) "Hands free" riding was much more difficult. Quote: "URB I is not an
easy bicycle to ride 'hands free' even with the front wheel static;
it somehow lacks balance and responsiveness. In the disrotatory mode
it was almost impossible and invited continual disaster, but it
could, just, be done."

D) Only slow speed stability was tested.

E) Jones concluded that the gyroscopic effect was a significant factor
in the inherent stability of a bicycle (albeit not the whole story):

"This test completed the ingredients for a more complete theory of the
bicycle. In addition to the rider's skill and the gyroscopic forces,
there are, acting on the front wheel, the center-of-gravity lowering
torque (figure 6) and castoring forces; the heavier the bicycle's load
the more important these become."

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~fajans/Teaching/MoreBikeFiles/JonesBikeBW.pdf

Perhaps actually reading the work you site would do more to make you
appear intelligent then simply misusing Latin abbreviations.

-Zenin

Date: 19 Jun 2005 21:21:53
From: Bill Patterson
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

THe equations for the effect of moment of inertia of the wheels are in
my text. You have an interesting observation of Jones' experiment. I had
not thought of the lack of a counter rotating rear wheel on his urb.
That is a great idea for a future experiment.

I have found that wheel inertia is a small effect and is not nearly as
important as trail. The problem of early recumbents was that we had a
myth that bikes should have an 18 degree castor angle. This is exactly
wrong. As the wheel gets smaller and lighter, it has less inertia.
Smaller wheels need more trail not less.

Of course the side ward friction force on the front wheel is what makes
bikes handle and the friction force on both wheels make the bike ride
able. If you think that wheel inertia (gyroscopic) is important, ride
you bike on the ice and see how important the side ward friction force
really is.

I must add the caveat that tiller/stem was not addressed in my earlier
theory. I knew it was important but didn't have a clue until I had a
long set of emails with k Stonich. The theory now includes tiller/stem.

Zenin wrote:
>
> A) Jones only countered the front wheel, not both wheels. -Which seems
> an odd oversight, but he's ster then I and must have had his
> reasons. The fact is however, he did not do "precisely" what you
> claim he did. Pick your words more carefully if you don't intend to
> actually read the works you site.
>
> B) The bike would collapse instantly when goast ridden.
>
> C) "Hands free" riding was much more difficult. Quote: "URB I is not an
> easy bicycle to ride 'hands free' even with the front wheel static;
> it somehow lacks balance and responsiveness. In the disrotatory mode
> it was almost impossible and invited continual disaster, but it
> could, just, be done."
>
> D) Only slow speed stability was tested.
>
> E) Jones concluded that the gyroscopic effect was a significant factor
> in the inherent stability of a bicycle (albeit not the whole story):
>
> "This test completed the ingredients for a more complete theory of the
> bicycle. In addition to the rider's skill and the gyroscopic forces,
> there are, acting on the front wheel, the center-of-gravity lowering
> torque (figure 6) and castoring forces; the heavier the bicycle's load
> the more important these become."
>
> http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~fajans/Teaching/MoreBikeFiles/JonesBikeBW.pdf
>
> Perhaps actually reading the work you site would do more to make you
> appear intelligent then simply misusing Latin abbreviations.
>
> -Zenin

--
Order Lords of the Chainring
http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/lords.html

Or use pay pal

Reply to wm.patterson@earthlink.net
wpatters@calpoly.edu
william.patterson@1962.usna.com

Date: 17 Jun 2005 07:54:43
From: LSMike
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118946265.491981@news.rhps.org...
> Dave Larrington <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Zenin wrote:
>>> and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect for stability).
>>
>> You don't with two wheels either. The effect of gyroscopic forces on the
>> stability of a bicycle is negligible.
>
> Get on your bicycle, both feet on the pedels. Don't start riding
> forward, just hold the brakes on and try to balance. After you've
> fallen over, come back here and let us know how many seconds you
> managed
> to stay upright with that "negligible" effect of gyroscopic force.
>
> Same fun of course can be had on a static trainer. While there are a
> few people who can hold a bike upright w/o gyroscopic forces assisting,
> most of them work in the circus.
>
> -Zenin

That's a poor analogy. How do you explain track standing on a normal bike?
I might add that there are a lot of people who can do a reasonable track
stand. Balancing whilst rolling slowly has nothing to with gyroscopic
precession either, it's all about keeping the wheels below your centre of
gravity.

Date: 17 Jun 2005 08:20:43
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

LSMike <mikevanerp@gmail.com > wrote:
> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Get on your bicycle, both feet on the pedels. Don't start riding
>> forward, just hold the brakes on and try to balance. After you've
>> fallen over, come back here and let us know how many seconds you
>> managed to stay upright with that "negligible" effect of gyroscopic
>> force.
>>
>> Same fun of course can be had on a static trainer. While there are a
>> few people who can hold a bike upright w/o gyroscopic forces
>> assisting, most of them work in the circus.
>>
>> -Zenin
>
> That's a poor analogy. How do you explain track standing on a normal
> bike? I might add that there are a lot of people who can do a reasonable
> track stand.

Aye, but it's not nearly as easy as a bike in motion, now is it? I
clearly noted it's possible, just considerably more difficult. It's
more difficult because it's less stable.

With particular reguard to ride stability, the gyroscope effect is what
causes a bike to naturally remain upright while in motion. That natual
tendency to remain upright is what gives a bike stability.

> Balancing whilst rolling slowly has nothing to with gyroscopic precession
> either, it's all about keeping the wheels below your centre of gravity.

If this is the case, explain how a bike can goast ride itself trivially,
but getting a bike to not fall over while not in motion is basically
impossible.

-Zenin

Date: 14 Jun 2005 19:01:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118776897.978419@news.rhps.org...
> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>> "Slugger" <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:
>>> Zenin <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.
>>>>
>>> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
>>> slack.
>>
>> Aerodynamics is the ONLY advantage that a recumbent has over an upright
>> when it comes to speed. But what does aerodynamics have to do with going
>> UP a hill?
>
> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down as
> they say. That said...

Glad you agree with me taht erodynamics does nto come into play when goign
UP a hill. did I not already sya somthign about how everybody looks good
going DOWN a hill, even kids on total klunkers? However, recumbents do shine
going down hills, but that does nto amke up for the travail of having to go
up them. Recumbnets will gradually fall behind uprights because of hills.
Teh goign down does nto equal the goign up.

> The main advantage wedgies have up hills is weight ('bents are
> generally
> more complex thus higher weight...although the smaller wheels can save
> some), but comparing a modern wedgie to a modern SWB 'bent the weight
> advantage isn't huge (significant, but not overwhelming...a few pounds
> at most). For a trike however, it gets very hard to not add
> significant
> weight as well as rolling and drive train resistance (but again,
> smaller
> wheels can help and with 3 of them you don't need the gyroscopic effect
> for stability).
>
> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument really
> doesn't hold well.
>
> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's
> legs
> don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to this that
> the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on a high BB
> design.
>
> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns w/o
> any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.
>
> Add it all up and "the ONLY advantage that a" wedgie has over a 'bent
> is
> going up very steep hills (with low wind). Moderate hills they are
> about even, while down hill and flats the 'bent will just destroy the
> wedgie. If you add much of any headwind and the 'bent starts looking
> very good even on steep hills.
>
> Oh yah, there's also the advantages of no neck/back ache, still being
> able to spawn children some day, and of course a nice tight r-butt. :-D
>
> -Zenin

Date: 15 Jun 2005 09:08:35
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>
>> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down as
>> they say. That said...
>
> Glad you agree with me taht erodynamics does nto come into play when goign
> UP a hill.

I didn't agree, and I don't. It matters less going up, on average, but
it still matters. With even a moderate head-wind it still matters a
*lot*.

> did I not already sya somthign about how everybody looks good going DOWN a
> hill, even kids on total klunkers? However, recumbents do shine going down
> hills, but that does nto amke up for the travail of having to go up them.

I read once there are parts of the world that actually are pretty flat.
I wonder if they ride bicycles in those places...

> Recumbnets will gradually fall behind uprights because of hills. Teh
> goign down does nto equal the goign up.

Depends on the hill, and the flats, and the wind direction/speed.

At the end of the day you still end up with a minor advantage for
wedgies going up, and a huge advantage for 'bents going down and on
flats.

-Zenin

Date: 15 Jun 2005 05:33:18
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Please disregard all the misspellings as did Zenin. I can spell but I can't
type worth a hoot! I use the spell check to correct all my typos, but this
one got sent erroneously before spell checking.

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118825655.481908@news.rhps.org...
> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down
>>> as
>>> they say. That said...
>>
>> Glad you agree with me taht erodynamics does nto come into play when
>> goign
>> UP a hill.
>
> I didn't agree, and I don't. It matters less going up, on average, but
> it still matters. With even a moderate head-wind it still matters a
> *lot*.

I never heard of aerodynamics having anything to do with going up a hill.
That is all about weight and gravity. I am not talking about roller coaster
type of hills, but real hills where you end up cussing at them.

>> did I not already sya somthign about how everybody looks good going DOWN
a
>> hill, even kids on total klunkers? However, recumbents do shine going
>> down
>> hills, but that does nto amke up for the travail of having to go up them.
>
> I read once there are parts of the world that actually are pretty flat.
> I wonder if they ride bicycles in those places...

The Upper Midwest has more recumbents and recumbent shops than any place
else in the world. It is fairly flat here in the Upper Midwest.

>> Recumbnets will gradually fall behind uprights because of hills. Teh
>> goign down does nto equal the goign up.
>
> Depends on the hill, and the flats, and the wind direction/speed.

I have seen recumbents by the legion fall behind uprights on hills on
various group tours that I have done. It is better to be honest about this
and not make claims for recumbents which will only prove false for newbies.

> At the end of the day you still end up with a minor advantage for
> wedgies going up, and a huge advantage for 'bents going down and on
> flats.

Uprights are easily just as fast as recumbents on the flats. Recumbents only
get consistently faster than uprights when they are faired. Again, it has to
do with aerodynamics and nothing else.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 15 Jun 2005 19:10:03
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> Please disregard all the misspellings as did Zenin. I can spell but I
> can't type worth a hoot! I use the spell check to correct all my typos,
> but this one got sent erroneously before spell checking.

I used to have a .sig line that read, "Spelling mistakes? Their can't
be any...my modem is error correcting!"

But alas...no one gets this joke anymore... :-(

But anyway, this is Usenet: So long as you don't spell cat, "D O G", no
one has an excuse to bitch. This is a conversational forum, not a
spelling bee. That's my view anyway.

> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
> news:1118825655.481908@news.rhps.org...
>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down
>>>> as they say. That said...
>>>
>>> Glad you agree with me taht erodynamics does nto come into play when
>>> goign UP a hill.
>>
>> I didn't agree, and I don't. It matters less going up, on average, but
>> it still matters. With even a moderate head-wind it still matters a
>> *lot*.
>
> I never heard of aerodynamics having anything to do with going up a hill.

Obviously you've never ridden in the pacific north west. :-) 40+ mph
winds are not uncommon along the coast, as are hills (at least in
Washington...Oregon is much flatter). Most sane riders tour north to
south to try and ride with the prevailing winds, because riding into
them has been known to be strong enough to stop a bike descending even
high grades (although those reports were made by wedgie riders :-)

The importance of aerodynamics depends upon the windspeed, not so much
the land speed or the grade. While typically your windspeed will be low
enough to not matter when you ride slower (as happends when going up a
steep hill), that is not always the case (the pacific north west coast
again being a prime example).

> That is all about weight and gravity. I am not talking about roller
> coaster type of hills, but real hills where you end up cussing at them.

I mentioned this in my other post, but again for me I ride bicycles to
go fast....if I wanted to go slow I'd take up jogging.

Over the average of road conditions a decent 'bent will easily out
perform a decent wedgie. For me at least, throwing away a huge speed
advantage over most road conditions (down + flat + moderate hills) so
that I can gain a small advantage over a tiny subset of conditions
(hella steep hills) makes no sense to me. Not only will it not get me
from point A to point B any faster, it's optimizing for the part of the
ride I hate (the slow part). Being able to go 6mph instead of 5mph up a
hill doesn't turn my crank even if it is 20% faster. Being able to go
60mph instead of 50mph does.

You've stated clearly you dislike (or are afraid of) going fast, so of
course for you it makes perfectly reasonable sense to optimize for the
slowest subset of conditions. To me that would be silly, but again I
like to go fast.

> >> did I not already sya somthign about how everybody looks good going
> >> DOWN a hill, even kids on total klunkers? However, recumbents do shine
> >> going down hills, but that does nto amke up for the travail of having
> >> to go up them.
>>
>> I read once there are parts of the world that actually are pretty flat.
>> I wonder if they ride bicycles in those places...
>
> The Upper Midwest has more recumbents and recumbent shops than any place
> else in the world. It is fairly flat here in the Upper Midwest.

Then why do you place so much importance on going up steep hills when
you don't have many?

>>> Recumbnets will gradually fall behind uprights because of hills. Teh
>>> goign down does nto equal the goign up.
>>
>> Depends on the hill, and the flats, and the wind direction/speed.
>
> I have seen recumbents by the legion fall behind uprights on hills on
> various group tours that I have done. It is better to be honest about this
> and not make claims for recumbents which will only prove false for
> newbies.

Fact: Most recumbents aren't designed to take steep hills well, and they
don't.

That is not in dispute, never was. Most recumbents are optimized for
other considerations such as comfort, ease of slow speed control, weight
barring (for touring use), etc. The same is true for wedgies (most
wedgies sold are not performance designed bikes). And just as true for
wedgies, some 'bent designs are designed for performance.

When you pit a performance built wedgie against a performance built
'bent (SWB, closed position, high BB, low CG), the 'bent wins handedly
(given equal motors of course) on all counts save for very steep hills.

Your claims have not been, "Most 'bents don't take hills well" or even
"the average 'bent is slower then the average wedgie", your claims have
been "No 'bent will ever match the raw, unbridled power of a wedgie!!!!
MAHAHAH!". Such dis-information does no one any good, least of all
novices.

>> At the end of the day you still end up with a minor advantage for
>> wedgies going up, and a huge advantage for 'bents going down and on
>> flats.
>
> Uprights are easily just as fast as recumbents on the flats. Recumbents
> only get consistently faster than uprights when they are faired. Again, it
> has to do with aerodynamics and nothing else.

Above ~18mph wind speed, aerodynamics is practically everything.

-Zenin

Date: 16 Jun 2005 01:31:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118861739.809532@news.rhps.org...
> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>> Please disregard all the misspellings as did Zenin. I can spell but I
>> can't type worth a hoot! I use the spell check to correct all my typos,
>> but this one got sent erroneously before spell checking.
>
> I used to have a .sig line that read, "Spelling mistakes? Their can't
> be any...my modem is error correcting!"
>
> But alas...no one gets this joke anymore... :-(
>
> But anyway, this is Usenet: So long as you don't spell cat, "D O G", no
> one has an excuse to bitch. This is a conversational forum, not a
> spelling bee. That's my view anyway.

My view is that writing is writing and conversation is conversation and they
are two different things entirely. I take pride in my writing and I want it
to be as good as I can make it, without spending undue amounts of time on
it.

>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
>> news:1118825655.481908@news.rhps.org...
>>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>>>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come
>>>>> down
>>>>> as they say. That said...
>>>>
>>>> Glad you agree with me taht erodynamics does nto come into play when
>>>> goign UP a hill.
>>>
>>> I didn't agree, and I don't. It matters less going up, on average,
>>> but
>>> it still matters. With even a moderate head-wind it still matters a
>>> *lot*.
>>
>> I never heard of aerodynamics having anything to do with going up a hill.
>
> Obviously you've never ridden in the pacific north west. :-) 40+ mph
> winds are not uncommon along the coast, as are hills (at least in
> Washington...Oregon is much flatter). Most sane riders tour north to
> south to try and ride with the prevailing winds, because riding into
> them has been known to be strong enough to stop a bike descending even
> high grades (although those reports were made by wedgie riders :-)

I consider 40 mph winds to be an unrideable condition.

> The importance of aerodynamics depends upon the windspeed, not so much
> the land speed or the grade. While typically your windspeed will be
> low
> enough to not matter when you ride slower (as happends when going up a
> steep hill), that is not always the case (the pacific north west coast
> again being a prime example).

I was thinking only of aerodynamics without regard to the wind. The wind is
a MAJOR complication for all cycling and I have spent the best years of my
life cursing it to high heaven.

>> That is all about weight and gravity. I am not talking about roller
>> coaster type of hills, but real hills where you end up cussing at them.
>
> I mentioned this in my other post, but again for me I ride bicycles to
> go fast....if I wanted to go slow I'd take up jogging.

Jogging is way too hard on the anatomy. It is best to just walk at a normal
pace for a couple of hours a day. That will keep you fit and clear the mind
as well. That is what I do to get through these long Minnesota winters.

> Over the average of road conditions a decent 'bent will easily out
> perform a decent wedgie. For me at least, throwing away a huge speed
> advantage over most road conditions (down + flat + moderate hills) so
> that I can gain a small advantage over a tiny subset of conditions
> (hella steep hills) makes no sense to me. Not only will it not get me
> from point A to point B any faster, it's optimizing for the part of the
> ride I hate (the slow part). Being able to go 6mph instead of 5mph up
> a
> hill doesn't turn my crank even if it is 20% faster. Being able to go
> 60mph instead of 50mph does.

Yes, having to go too slow on any bike is a drag and no fun at all. But I
remember my bike tour of the Colorado mountains. A recumbent would not have
worked for me in that terrain. Rolling hills are not that bad on a
recumbent, but still they wear you down. Cycling really comes into it's own
on the flats. It is just too hard to go up hills on a recumbent.

> You've stated clearly you dislike (or are afraid of) going fast, so of
> course for you it makes perfectly reasonable sense to optimize for the
> slowest subset of conditions. To me that would be silly, but again I
> like to go fast.
>
>> >> did I not already sya somthign about how everybody looks good going
>> >> DOWN a hill, even kids on total klunkers? However, recumbents do shine
>> >> going down hills, but that does nto amke up for the travail of having
>> >> to go up them.
>>>
>>> I read once there are parts of the world that actually are pretty
>>> flat.
>>> I wonder if they ride bicycles in those places...
>>
>> The Upper Midwest has more recumbents and recumbent shops than any place
>> else in the world. It is fairly flat here in the Upper Midwest.
>
> Then why do you place so much importance on going up steep hills when
> you don't have many?

I have cycled in many other areas of the country which are not nearly so
flat as the Upper Midwest. Having to cross a major mountain range on a
recumbent is my idea having died and gone to hell. It is not easy on an
upright either, but it is doable. Frankly, it is not doable on a recumbent.

>>>> Recumbnets will gradually fall behind uprights because of hills. Teh
>>>> goign down does nto equal the goign up.
>>>
>>> Depends on the hill, and the flats, and the wind direction/speed.
>>
>> I have seen recumbents by the legion fall behind uprights on hills on
>> various group tours that I have done. It is better to be honest about
>> this
>> and not make claims for recumbents which will only prove false for
>> newbies.
>
> Fact: Most recumbents aren't designed to take steep hills well, and
> they
> don't.
>
> That is not in dispute, never was. Most recumbents are optimized for
> other considerations such as comfort, ease of slow speed control,
> weight
> barring (for touring use), etc. The same is true for wedgies (most
> wedgies sold are not performance designed bikes). And just as true for
> wedgies, some 'bent designs are designed for performance.

Agreed!

> When you pit a performance built wedgie against a performance built
> 'bent (SWB, closed position, high BB, low CG), the 'bent wins handedly
> (given equal motors of course) on all counts save for very steep hills.
>
> Your claims have not been, "Most 'bents don't take hills well" or even
> "the average 'bent is slower then the average wedgie", your claims have
> been "No 'bent will ever match the raw, unbridled power of a wedgie!!!!
> MAHAHAH!". Such dis-information does no one any good, least of all
> novices.

I have never noted recumbents holding even with uprights on my week long
group bike tours. I have noted how recumbents can pass uprights going down
hills, but that is about it. Recumbents will always fall behind uprights
going up hills. And I do not believe recumbents are overall faster than
uprights. I am only interested in real world situations, not racing events.

>>> At the end of the day you still end up with a minor advantage for
>>> wedgies going up, and a huge advantage for 'bents going down and on
>>> flats.

Being able to go up a hill fast is a major advantage; being able to go down
a hill fast is a minor advantage. You have got everything backwards.

>> Uprights are easily just as fast as recumbents on the flats. Recumbents
>> only get consistently faster than uprights when they are faired. Again,
>> it
>> has to do with aerodynamics and nothing else.
>
> Above ~18mph wind speed, aerodynamics is practically everything.

Agreed! Which is why fairings become so important. And aerodynamics do not
come into play going uphill.

I will admit I have seen recumbents more than keep up with uprights on the
flats. It is possible that recumbents could actually be faster than uprights
on the flats. I remain unsure about this. But hills ruin it for recumbents
as far as I am concerned.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 14 Jun 2005 19:20:45
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

I hit "Send" instead of "Spell Check." Here it is correct.

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:upednbotYcNe8jLfRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
> news:1118776897.978419@news.rhps.org...
>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>>> "Slugger" <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:
>>>> Zenin <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And except for those who understand basic aerodynamics.
>>>>>
>>>> Nobody of any credibility ever said Mr. Ed was a genius, cut him some
>>>> slack.
>>>
>>> Aerodynamics is the ONLY advantage that a recumbent has over an upright
>>> when it comes to speed. But what does aerodynamics have to do with going
>>> UP a hill?
>>
>> Since when does one only ride up hills? What goes up must come down
>> as
>> they say. That said...

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Glad you agree with me that aerodynamics does not come into play when
> going UP a hill. Did I not already say something about how everybody
> looks good going DOWN a hill, even kids on total klunkers? However,
> recumbents do shine going down hills, but that does not make up for the
> travail of having to go up them. Recumbents will gradually fall behind
> uprights because of hills. The going down does not equal the going up.
[...]

>> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
>> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument really
>> doesn't hold well.

That torque advantage can be very hard on the knees though.

>> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's
>> legs
>> don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to this that
>> the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on a high BB
>> design.

A high BB goes AGAINST the design of our bodies for a working position.
However, a high BB does go WITH the design of our bodies for a resting
position. I don't know about you, but when I am cycling I am working, not
resting. This is all very elementary anatomy and physiology. The high BB has
to do with aerodynamics and with nothing else.

>> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns w/o
>> any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.

I never feel safe making fast turns on any kind of a recumbent.

>> Add it all up and "the ONLY advantage that a" wedgie has over a 'bent
>> is
>> going up very steep hills (with low wind). Moderate hills they are
>> about even, while down hill and flats the 'bent will just destroy the
>> wedgie. If you add much of any headwind and the 'bent starts looking
>> very good even on steep hills.

A recumbent cannot make up for the lost speed it suffers going up a hill no
matter how fast it is able to go down a hill.

>> Oh yah, there's also the advantages of no neck/back ache, still being
>> able to spawn children some day, and of course a nice tight r-butt.
>> :-D

Agreed!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 15 Jun 2005 09:29:32
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> I hit "Send" instead of "Spell Check." Here it is correct.
>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
>>> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument really
>>> doesn't hold well.
>
> That torque advantage can be very hard on the knees though.

No worse then standing off the seat of a wedgie.

My knees (along with my back and neck) always hurt badly after riding a
wedgie for a few hours. On my P-38 I can do 8-10 hours daily without
any such pain. -Well, I could when I was in training for touring...I'm
not in nearly the shape needed for rides that long right now.

But the point is if the 'bent is any harder on my knees then the wedgie,
my knees sure as hell never told me about it.

>>> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's
>>> legs don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to this
>>> that the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on a high
>>> BB design.
>
> A high BB goes AGAINST the design of our bodies for a working position.
> However, a high BB does go WITH the design of our bodies for a resting
> position. I don't know about you, but when I am cycling I am working, not
> resting. This is all very elementary anatomy and physiology. The high BB
> has to do with aerodynamics and with nothing else.

I must say after being away from this group for a couple years, it's
nice to know the comedy hasn't been forgotten. Thanks. :-)

>>> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns
>>> w/o any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.
>
> I never feel safe making fast turns on any kind of a recumbent.

If you're that unsteady on a 'bent that's your problem. Honestly it
sounds like simple lack of experience with them or only haven riden
something cheap?

Myself I know my P-38 well enough to take high-lean turns even at speeds
over 60mph while still pumping, without fear. -When I was touring I'd
frequently do such speeds down mountains while pulling a Bob trailer
with 60lbs of camping gear...still as rock steady as a racing
motorcycle. The much lower center of gravity makes for a much more
stable ride at such high speeds then any wedgie. Should anything
happen, being much closer to the ground means a much shorter distance to
fall.

>>> Add it all up and "the ONLY advantage that a" wedgie has over a 'bent
>>> is going up very steep hills (with low wind). Moderate hills they
>>> are about even, while down hill and flats the 'bent will just destroy
>>> the wedgie. If you add much of any headwind and the 'bent starts
>>> looking very good even on steep hills.
>
> A recumbent cannot make up for the lost speed it suffers going up a hill
> no matter how fast it is able to go down a hill.

...and on flats (you know, the long parts that tend to happen between
hills).

Again, at the end of the day wedgies gain a slight advantage going up
very steep hills, while 'bents enjoy a *huge* advantage going down, on
flats, and even most common moderate hills.

-Zenin

Date: 15 Jun 2005 05:11:42
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118826912.360746@news.rhps.org...
>
>>>> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
>>>> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument really
>>>> doesn't hold well.

Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> That torque advantage can be very hard on the knees though.
>
> No worse then standing off the seat of a wedgie.

No, that is not correct. You can bust your knees because your legs are being
compressed between two points, the seat back and the pedals. That does not
come into play standing on an upright.

> My knees (along with my back and neck) always hurt badly after riding a
> wedgie for a few hours. On my P-38 I can do 8-10 hours daily without
> any such pain. -Well, I could when I was in training for touring...I'm
> not in nearly the shape needed for rides that long right now.

Yes, recumbents are all about comfort and little else (well, they are also a
lot of fun too). I had to give up on uprights because of upper back and neck
pain. Butt pain I could live with up to a point, but I could not live with
the upper back and neck pain. It was excruciating!

> But the point is if the 'bent is any harder on my knees then the
> wedgie,
> my knees sure as hell never told me about it.

As long as you don't push too hard your knees should be fine. But the
potential is there for severe damage.

>>>> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's
>>>> legs don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to
>>>> this
>>>> that the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on a high
>>>> BB design.
>>
>> A high BB goes AGAINST the design of our bodies for a working position.
>> However, a high BB does go WITH the design of our bodies for a resting
>> position. I don't know about you, but when I am cycling I am working, not
>> resting. This is all very elementary anatomy and physiology. The high BB
>> has to do with aerodynamics and with nothing else.
>
> I must say after being away from this group for a couple years, it's
> nice to know the comedy hasn't been forgotten. Thanks. :-)

That whole concept about gravity working either for you or against you with
respect to your legs is also very funny.

>>>> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns
>>>> w/o any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.
>>
>> I never feel safe making fast turns on any kind of a recumbent.
>
> If you're that unsteady on a 'bent that's your problem. Honestly it
> sounds like simple lack of experience with them or only haven riden
> something cheap?

All you have to do is fall off your recumbent just once in a turn and land
on your tail bone and you will become a true believer. Recumbents are far
more tricky than uprights. I have ridden many thousands of miles on various
recumbents and I never trust any of them entirely.

> Myself I know my P-38 well enough to take high-lean turns even at
> speeds
> over 60mph while still pumping, without fear. -When I was touring I'd
> frequently do such speeds down mountains while pulling a Bob trailer
> with 60lbs of camping gear...still as rock steady as a racing
> motorcycle. The much lower center of gravity makes for a much more
> stable ride at such high speeds then any wedgie. Should anything
> happen, being much closer to the ground means a much shorter distance
> to
> fall.

Actually, a higher center of gravity is better for balance and control. That
is why you can do a track stand on an upright and you can't do it on a
recumbent.

However, regardless of center of gravity, you are riding very dangerously.
60 mph is not a bike speed. Anything over about 30 mph does not feel safe to
me, regardless of the design of the recumbent.

>>>> Add it all up and "the ONLY advantage that a" wedgie has over a
>>>> 'bent
>>>> is going up very steep hills (with low wind). Moderate hills they
>>>> are about even, while down hill and flats the 'bent will just
>>>> destroy
>>>> the wedgie. If you add much of any headwind and the 'bent starts
>>>> looking very good even on steep hills.
>>
>> A recumbent cannot make up for the lost speed it suffers going up a hill
>> no matter how fast it is able to go down a hill.
>
> ...and on flats (you know, the long parts that tend to happen between
> hills).
>
> Again, at the end of the day wedgies gain a slight advantage going up
> very steep hills, while 'bents enjoy a *huge* advantage going down, on
> flats, and even most common moderate hills.

I believe uprights are quite superior to recumbents when it comes to
climbing hills and that nothing can make up for it. The only sensible thing
to do is to stay out of the mountains if you are riding a recumbent.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 15 Jun 2005 18:27:37
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
>>>>> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument
>>>>> really doesn't hold well.
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>> That torque advantage can be very hard on the knees though.
>>
>> No worse then standing off the seat of a wedgie.
>
> No, that is not correct. You can bust your knees because your legs are
> being compressed between two points, the seat back and the pedals. That
> does not come into play standing on an upright.

I see what you're saying here now. The position allows a rider even
greater resistance then is available from simple gravity on a wedgie.
It then falls upon the rider to judge how much pressure their body can
take.

That said, the body can take a hell of a lot. Weight lifters for
instance put massively more stress on their knees with the exact same
geometry when doing standing lifts. If a 200lb guy can pickup two
hundred pounds, to match that same stress to his knees pushing on a
'bent he'd have to push with 400 lbs of force. I know I can't generate
that kind of force if I tried, much less while holding a decent cadence.

Besides, it's mostly a mute argument for anyone riding with clips on a
'bent as you're pulling nearly in equilibrium with pushing, generating
no substantial force against the seat. -FYI, on a 'bent it's generally
much easier to take full advantage of clips then on a wedgie. Woops,
there's another advantage to the 'bent... :-D

>> My knees (along with my back and neck) always hurt badly after riding
>> a wedgie for a few hours. On my P-38 I can do 8-10 hours daily
>> without any such pain. -Well, I could when I was in training for
>> touring...I'm not in nearly the shape needed for rides that long right
>> now.
>
> Yes, recumbents are all about comfort and little else (well, they are also
> a lot of fun too). I had to give up on uprights because of upper back and
> neck pain. Butt pain I could live with up to a point, but I could not live
> with the upper back and neck pain. It was excruciating!

It's really odd for you to say this, because quite frankly the arguments
you seem to make are only understandable if they came from someone with
little to no real experience riding 'bents?

If I might ask, what 'bents do you own/ride and how long have you been
riding? Personally I ride a P-38 with a small Zipper fairing. I've
rode it for nearly a decade now. I've ridden a few different LWB bikes
as well, but never owned one. My only wedgie left in the stable is a
mountain bike.

>> But the point is if the 'bent is any harder on my knees then the
>> wedgie, my knees sure as hell never told me about it.
>
> As long as you don't push too hard your knees should be fine. But the
> potential is there for severe damage.

Just getting in the seat of any bicycle has potential for severe damage.

Avoiding this "danger" seems like a no brainer: "Hey, my knees feel like
they are going to explode! Maybe I should gear down and raise my
cadence a bit...and/or buy some clips and pull as hard as I push."

Recumbents are pretty numerous...if what you claim is really even the
slightest bit a practical possibility, surely there should be at least
some anecdotal evidence of people blowing out their knees this way? Got
any links to share? I've not heard any stories of this ever happening?
I've heard and experienced recumbent butt, but never recumbent knee.

>>>>> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the rider's
>>>>> legs don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to
>>>>> this that the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on
>>>>> a high BB design.
>>>
>>> A high BB goes AGAINST the design of our bodies for a working position.
>>> However, a high BB does go WITH the design of our bodies for a resting
>>> position. I don't know about you, but when I am cycling I am working,
>>> not resting. This is all very elementary anatomy and physiology. The
>>> high BB has to do with aerodynamics and with nothing else.
>>
>> I must say after being away from this group for a couple years, it's
>> nice to know the comedy hasn't been forgotten. Thanks. :-)
>
> That whole concept about gravity working either for you or against you
> with respect to your legs is also very funny.

By this logic of yours, "the whole concept about hills working either
for you or against you is also very funny".

Here's a test: Run 100 yards flat. Now go find a stair case that is 50
yards long and run up and back down it. Let me know which 100 yard dash
took more effort.

>>>>> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns
>>>>> w/o any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.
>>>
>>> I never feel safe making fast turns on any kind of a recumbent.
>>
>> If you're that unsteady on a 'bent that's your problem. Honestly it
>> sounds like simple lack of experience with them or only haven riden
>> something cheap?
>
> All you have to do is fall off your recumbent just once in a turn and land
> on your tail bone and you will become a true believer. Recumbents are far
> more tricky than uprights. I have ridden many thousands of miles on
> various recumbents and I never trust any of them entirely.

It probably depends on the 'bent, but on my P-38 dropping the bike is
intrinsically a hell of a lot less traumatic then a wedgie. In
particular there isn't far to "fall" (I quote "fall" because it's more
like "sit down" in practice)... Dropping a P-38 in a turn means
"falling" some 12" at most. It's not the fall that hurts, it's the road
rash, which is the same for wedgie or 'bent.

Wedgie bikes in stark contrast nearly guarantee when the rider falls
they will fall far, hard, and uncontrolled. Every 'bent fall I've had
or seen has been some form of "sitting down on the pavement". I can't
remember anyone ever breaking anything. Wedgie falls however...man,
even the smallest of falls is hard for me to watch and I hang around
with skaters.

And it still amazes me these claims you make as to actually being a
'bent rider...your statements just don't have the ring of experience.

>> Myself I know my P-38 well enough to take high-lean turns even at
>> speeds over 60mph while still pumping, without fear. -When I was
>> touring I'd frequently do such speeds down mountains while pulling a
>> Bob trailer with 60lbs of camping gear...still as rock steady as a
>> racing motorcycle. The much lower center of gravity makes for a much
>> more stable ride at such high speeds then any wedgie. Should anything
>> happen, being much closer to the ground means a much shorter distance
>> to fall.
>
> Actually, a higher center of gravity is better for balance and control.

MAHAHAH! Ok, now you're just trying too hard to be funny. You need to
let the comedy flow naturally...don't force it.

> That is why you can do a track stand on an upright and you can't do it on
> a recumbent.

You're confusing the effects of gyroscope with center of gravity. Or
you're just trying to be funny. It's getting hard to tell when you're
cracking a joke or trying to be serious.

> However, regardless of center of gravity, you are riding very dangerously.
> 60 mph is not a bike speed. Anything over about 30 mph does not feel safe
> to me, regardless of the design of the recumbent.

It may not feel safe to you, but frankly that's your problem. It does
however, make some sense of your statements; If you're riding the brakes
down a hill to keep from going over 30mph, of course you're never going
to make up any time you might have lost going up.

It sounds to me like you're afraid generally to go fast, so you're
trying to make believe the entire sport of bicycling is done at slow,
tedious speeds (ie, all uphill, riding the brakes down).

For me I like bicycling because I like to go fast. If I wanted to go
slow I'd take up jogging. And I'm not sure what clunker you ride, but
my bike rides like it's on rails at 50+mph. My only problem going over
60mph is not having a gear tall enough for me to keep pushing above
that.

> I believe uprights are quite superior to recumbents when it comes to
> climbing hills and that nothing can make up for it. The only sensible
> thing to do is to stay out of the mountains if you are riding a recumbent.

This argument makes perfect sense.

...At least for someone who rides down mountains with their breaks on so
as to not soil themselves by possibly breaking a mind bending 30 mph...

-Zenin

Date: 16 Jun 2005 00:46:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message
news:1118859193.680561@news.rhps.org...
> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Some will try and clame a leverage/torque advantage for hills, but
>>>>>> against a closed position SWB 'bent like a P-38 that argument
>>>>>> really doesn't hold well.
>>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That torque advantage can be very hard on the knees though.
>>>
>>> No worse then standing off the seat of a wedgie.
>>
>> No, that is not correct. You can bust your knees because your legs are
>> being compressed between two points, the seat back and the pedals. That
>> does not come into play standing on an upright.
>
> I see what you're saying here now. The position allows a rider even
> greater resistance then is available from simple gravity on a wedgie.
> It then falls upon the rider to judge how much pressure their body can
> take.
>
> That said, the body can take a hell of a lot. Weight lifters for
> instance put massively more stress on their knees with the exact same
> geometry when doing standing lifts. If a 200lb guy can pickup two
> hundred pounds, to match that same stress to his knees pushing on a
> 'bent he'd have to push with 400 lbs of force. I know I can't generate
> that kind of force if I tried, much less while holding a decent
> cadence.

Weight lifters work at getting strong. Cyclists don't. It is very easy to
push too hard when cycling on a recumbent.

> Besides, it's mostly a mute argument for anyone riding with clips on a
> 'bent as you're pulling nearly in equilibrium with pushing, generating
> no substantial force against the seat. -FYI, on a 'bent it's generally
> much easier to take full advantage of clips then on a wedgie. Woops,
> there's another advantage to the 'bent... :-D

Recumbents with high a BB require clips; uprights do not need them as much.

>>> My knees (along with my back and neck) always hurt badly after riding
>>> a wedgie for a few hours. On my P-38 I can do 8-10 hours daily
>>> without any such pain. -Well, I could when I was in training for
>>> touring...I'm not in nearly the shape needed for rides that long
>>> right
>>> now.
>>
>> Yes, recumbents are all about comfort and little else (well, they are
>> also
>> a lot of fun too). I had to give up on uprights because of upper back and
>> neck pain. Butt pain I could live with up to a point, but I could not
>> live
>> with the upper back and neck pain. It was excruciating!
>
> It's really odd for you to say this, because quite frankly the
> arguments
> you seem to make are only understandable if they came from someone with
> little to no real experience riding 'bents?

Everyone comes to recumbents because of the pain they experience riding
uprights. Only a very few freaks ever get into recumbents for the speed
thing.

> If I might ask, what 'bents do you own/ride and how long have you been
> riding? Personally I ride a P-38 with a small Zipper fairing. I've
> rode it for nearly a decade now. I've ridden a few different LWB bikes
> as well, but never owned one. My only wedgie left in the stable is a
> mountain bike.

I have 13 recumbents, all varieties, and I have been riding them for over 20
years.

The P-38 is an intersting recumbent. I have known several cyclists who have
it. I do not like it at all. It feels as if your legs are coming back into
your gut - and it is not all that comfy either. Furthermore, I will get numb
feet if I ride it for more than an hour because of the high BB. I would
never dream of going much faster than 30 mph on it.

>>> But the point is if the 'bent is any harder on my knees then the
>>> wedgie, my knees sure as hell never told me about it.
>>
>> As long as you don't push too hard your knees should be fine. But the
>> potential is there for severe damage.
>
> Just getting in the seat of any bicycle has potential for severe
> damage.
>
> Avoiding this "danger" seems like a no brainer: "Hey, my knees feel
> like
> they are going to explode! Maybe I should gear down and raise my
> cadence a bit...and/or buy some clips and pull as hard as I push."
>
> Recumbents are pretty numerous...if what you claim is really even the
> slightest bit a practical possibility, surely there should be at least
> some anecdotal evidence of people blowing out their knees this way?
> Got
> any links to share? I've not heard any stories of this ever happening?
> I've heard and experienced recumbent butt, but never recumbent knee.

Many recumbent cyclists complain of sore knees at the end of a long ride.
They have been pushing too hard trying to be fast.

>>>>>> Add a high BB and 'bents gain an endurance advantage as the
>>>>>> rider's
>>>>>> legs don't need to fight gravity as they do on a wedgie. Add to
>>>>>> this that the pull stroke is much easier to get good power from on
>>>>>> a high BB design.
>>>>
>>>> A high BB goes AGAINST the design of our bodies for a working position.
>>>> However, a high BB does go WITH the design of our bodies for a resting
>>>> position. I don't know about you, but when I am cycling I am working,
>>>> not resting. This is all very elementary anatomy and physiology. The
>>>> high BB has to do with aerodynamics and with nothing else.
>>>
>>> I must say after being away from this group for a couple years, it's
>>> nice to know the comedy hasn't been forgotten. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> That whole concept about gravity working either for you or against you
>> with respect to your legs is also very funny.
>
> By this logic of yours, "the whole concept about hills working either
> for you or against you is also very funny".
>
> Here's a test: Run 100 yards flat. Now go find a stair case that is 50
> yards long and run up and back down it. Let me know which 100 yard
> dash
> took more effort.

Our leg muscles and blood circulation are designed by nature to withstand
the effects of gravity, but to have your legs elevated above your hips while
pedaling a bicycle is not part of the design. You need to review your
elementary anatomy and physiology.

>>>>>> Oh yah...and a high BB 'bent can power around the fastest of turns
>>>>>> w/o any fear of ever dropping a peddle into the road.
>>>>
>>>> I never feel safe making fast turns on any kind of a recumbent.
>>>
>>> If you're that unsteady on a 'bent that's your problem. Honestly it
>>> sounds like simple lack of experience with them or only haven riden
>>> something cheap?
>>
>> All you have to do is fall off your recumbent just once in a turn and
>> land
>> on your tail bone and you will become a true believer. Recumbents are far
>> more tricky than uprights. I have ridden many thousands of miles on
>> various recumbents and I never trust any of them entirely.
>
> It probably depends on the 'bent, but on my P-38 dropping the bike is
> intrinsically a hell of a lot less traumatic then a wedgie. In
> particular there isn't far to "fall" (I quote "fall" because it's more
> like "sit down" in practice)... Dropping a P-38 in a turn means
> "falling" some 12" at most. It's not the fall that hurts, it's the
> road
> rash, which is the same for wedgie or 'bent.
>
> Wedgie bikes in stark contrast nearly guarantee when the rider falls
> they will fall far, hard, and uncontrolled. Every 'bent fall I've had
> or seen has been some form of "sitting down on the pavement". I can't
> remember anyone ever breaking anything. Wedgie falls however...man,
> even the smallest of falls is hard for me to watch and I hang around
> with skaters.

When you fall off an upright you will most likely land on your hip or
shoulder, not your tailbone. You do not know what pain is until you have
landed on your tailbone. However, at the speeds you travel, do not worry
about hurting yourself. You will simply kill yourself.

> And it still amazes me these claims you make as to actually being a
> 'bent rider...your statements just don't have the ring of experience.

Your statements have the ring of someone who is headed for a very big
accident.

>>> Myself I know my P-38 well enough to take high-lean turns even at
>>> speeds over 60mph while still pumping, without fear. -When I was
>>> touring I'd frequently do such speeds down mountains while pulling a
>>> Bob trailer with 60lbs of camping gear...still as rock steady as a
>>> racing motorcycle. The much lower center of gravity makes for a much
>>> more stable ride at such high speeds then any wedgie. Should
>>> anything
>>> happen, being much closer to the ground means a much shorter distance
>>> to fall.

It is not the distance you fall, but the speed at which you fall.

>> Actually, a higher center of gravity is better for balance and control.
>
> MAHAHAH! Ok, now you're just trying too hard to be funny. You need to
> let the comedy flow naturally...don't force it.
>
>> That is why you can do a track stand on an upright and you can't do it on
>> a recumbent.
>
> You're confusing the effects of gyroscope with center of gravity. Or
> you're just trying to be funny. It's getting hard to tell when you're
> cracking a joke or trying to be serious.

You have much better control and handling on an upright than you will ever
have on any recumbent, especially a short wheelbase recumbent like the P-38.

>> However, regardless of center of gravity, you are riding very
>> dangerously.
>> 60 mph is not a bike speed. Anything over about 30 mph does not feel safe
>> to me, regardless of the design of the recumbent.
>
> It may not feel safe to you, but frankly that's your problem. It does
> however, make some sense of your statements; If you're riding the
> brakes
> down a hill to keep from going over 30mph, of course you're never going
> to make up any time you might have lost going up.

You bet I ride the brakes going down a steep hill, especially if it is a
curvy steep hill. As for it being a problem, the only problem I foresee is
one for you when an ambulance is picking you off the pavement and carrying
you off to the hospital - or maybe the morgue.

> It sounds to me like you're afraid generally to go fast, so you're
> trying to make believe the entire sport of bicycling is done at slow,
> tedious speeds (ie, all uphill, riding the brakes down).

20 to 30 mph is not a slow speed, but is about what bicycles are designed
for. To want to go faster than that is just asking for trouble. It is not
fear that makes me keep my speed down, but good old fashion common sense -
something sorely lacking in the world today. I enjoy riding my bikes on the
flats; I do not enjoy riding my bikes in the hills.

> For me I like bicycling because I like to go fast. If I wanted to go
> slow I'd take up jogging. And I'm not sure what clunker you ride, but
> my bike rides like it's on rails at 50+mph. My only problem going over
> 60mph is not having a gear tall enough for me to keep pushing above
> that.

I regard you as a fool. I have seen your type on group bike tours and I stay
as far away from your type as I can get. I do not regard you as a lover of
cycling at all. You are merely a speed freak.

>> I believe uprights are quite superior to recumbents when it comes to
>> climbing hills and that nothing can make up for it. The only sensible
>> thing to do is to stay out of the mountains if you are riding a
>> recumbent.
>
> This argument makes perfect sense.
[...]

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Date: 13 Jun 2005 13:17:22
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

Edward Dolan wrote:

> So you say, but I don't believe you. Trikes are NEVER faster than a
> road bike (everything else being equal of course).

That would explain all the road bikes I overtook between ket Drayton and
Picklescott on Saturday, then.

Of course, they all overtook me again between Picklescott and Bridges...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
Bandersnatch? I would never have guessed.

Date: 10 Jun 2005 22:07:02
From: ___________
Subject: Re: I'm Dyin' to try..

"db." <db823@go.com > wrote in message
news:ZVmqe.3706$g5.258@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> hello everyone
>
> I've been researching delta and tadpoles for some time now, and I'll
> admit I'm leaning toward the tadpole concept.
> I realize that even the manufacturing sites say some technique is
> involved, but I don't see the big deal, it's technique, not rare talent.
> I'm 6'6" with an "x-seam" of nearly 50", if I did it right(a 36" inseam).
> There's no one in my area that sell tadpoles or any kind of `bent rider
> for that matter and the more I research the more I'm itchin' to try one.
> I'm in the Albany, NY area the nearest retailer is 2½ hours out.
> I'm not completely in the dark on cycling I've owned racers and mountain
> bikes since I can remember and I'm quickly becoming a fan.
>
> On another note there will be a meet in western NY in August.
>
> http://www.bentrideronline.com/bentride/nyevent.htm
>
> I'm hoping that will quell my curiosity.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> I'm hoping to meet some people out there who can teach me a thing or 2.

Hey db,

I'm currently on my second tadpole trike, a 2004 Catrike Speed. I bought it
from Calhoun Cycle in Minneapolis, MN, without a test ride. The re-assembly
was no problem; but I did have a few issues with some details. For
instance, the front wheel spoke tension is very low (need to get that
fixed). Calhoun is a great dealership, which I highly recommend, BTW.

Though it's a beautiful design, I wasn't sure about the Speed at first. I
was pretty slow on it while I was building up "recumbent muscles." Handling
is "thrilling." That is to say, very sensitive, with noticeable pedal steer
and obvious brake steer (exacerbated by very powerful Avid disc brakes).
You don't so much steer the Speed as you think about turning, and it goes
there. Any more effort than that and you'll probably flip the thing. I kid
you not. I had it on two wheels numerous times in the first few days of
riding. For several weeks, I wasn't comfortable at speeds over about 20mph.
BTW: The headrest is a must-have, especially the new suspended version.
I'll be buying one of those soon. The unsuspended one can be pretty jarring.

Now that I've logged some miles on the Speed, I feel more comfortable and
safe than I felt at first. I'm definitely faster now - very fast, in fact.
I find myself spinning out in top gear on occasion, and still feel confident
at that speed (though I am very careful). I still won't ride on streets
with any traffic to speak of. I haul the trike around in my hatchback,
preferring to ride on paved bike paths, in big empty parking lots and in new
housing developments (before the houses are built = no traffic). There are,
of course, intrepid tadpole trike commuters out there; but I won't be
joining their ranks. I value my life more than that.

Though the Speed is even more thrilling than I had imagined (read:
white-knuckle ride), it is a helluva lot of fun. It really is like a
3-wheeled pedal-powered go-kart in many ways. The brakes work *very* well if
you ever get going faster than you'd like. You just have to be careful to
apply them evenly. I'm getting to where I can do emergency stops from high
speeds very well, with minimal back-and-forth twitching (from uneven brake
application/modulation). My first tadpole trike had a single lever to
control both brakes, which worked pretty well. This one, you gotta watch how
you apply the stoppers.

That being said, there's nothing like a tadpole trike if you like to cruise
along gazing up at the trees and the clouds, with no worries about falling
over. I love to find big open stretches of pavement (sans cars), and just
stare at the sky while pedalling at a leisurely pace. It makes stress melt
away. It's wonderful relaxation therapy, and a gentle workout all in one.
Can't beat it. It makes me think that cross-country touring might be a
great experience if I could find a suitably safe route.

See if you can find a trike owner in your area to give you a test ride. I
think you'll be very happy with a tadpole trike.