| |
Main
Date: 20 Feb 2006 15:44:43
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
going clipless?
Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
the controversy over helmets?
(Seriously!)
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 17:52:41
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
> ... prefer platforms on the Brompton folder I use as an urban
> hack bike because it means I don't have to put on special shoes to use
> the bike...
I prefer Power Grips for this type of use, since one can still benefit
from the foot retention while wearing regular shoes.
--
Tom Sherman
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 17:44:02
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
John Knez wrote:
> eflayer2 wrote:
> > 1. feet in the air
> > 2. starting on inclines
> > 3. transporting
> > 4. climbing in general
> > 5. never got comfortable descending fast on twisty roads
> > 6. shifting a triple while ascending
> >
> > Other than that is was perfect.
> >
> In regards to number 2, I think SWB bents in general are harder to start
> when you are ascending. Between my Django, Sun EZ-1, and an upright,
> the Django is definitely harder for me to start than the other two
> bikes when going uphill. Once under way, I find the Django climbs as
> well as the other two bikes.
I find starting out on a recumbent easier than an upright, since the
only actions one has to take on a recumbent are steering and bringing
the "down" foot up to the pedals (and even the latter is not necessary
on some lowracers where the rider can use a hand on the ground
instead). On an upright, one has to steer to balance, bring the bicycle
from a leaning position to vertical, move a foot from the ground to a
pedal, and move one's body backwards all at the same time, so it is
four (4) actions instead of two (2) actions. I believe that this is
part of the reason casual and inexperienced riders like the
crank-forward (semi-recumbent/semi-upright) bicycles, since they allow
the rider to put both feet on the ground with the bicycle upright and
the rider seated on the saddle.
--
Tom Sherman
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 08:07:46
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Cole wrote:
>
>
> I think it's pretty uncommon to black out from anaerobic exertion
> (likely severe evolutionary penalty to passing out when running from the
> saber tooth). I can push myself into some symptoms of low brain oxygen
> such as tunnel and monochromatic vision (on rare heroic occasions, but
> also sometimes when just rising from the sofa). When I'm doing a long
> sustained effort that I want to be right at my aerobic maximum, I can
> judge it accurately by the slight numbness I get in my upper lip,
> another symptom I think of blood being diverted from my face.
>
> <SNIP>
I was always a crazy kid...when gramps told me not to cut myself, I did
it just to see what would happen...ditto with matches, bug spray (!!!),
and holding one's breath...I held it and the next thing I knew I woke
up on the floor....
Interestingly enough, I've never blacked out from anything without
meaning to be...as Army Infantry likes to say, "at first you'll think
you're going to die, then you'll wish you *could* die, then you'll know
you can NEVER die."
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 07:14:17
From: eflayer2
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
1. feet in the air
2. starting on inclines
3. transporting
4. climbing in general
5. never got comfortable descending fast on twisty roads
6. shifting a triple while ascending
Other than that is was perfect.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 19:41:52
From: John Knez
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
eflayer2 wrote:
> 1. feet in the air
> 2. starting on inclines
> 3. transporting
> 4. climbing in general
> 5. never got comfortable descending fast on twisty roads
> 6. shifting a triple while ascending
>
> Other than that is was perfect.
>
In regards to number 2, I think SWB bents in general are harder to start
when you are ascending. Between my Django, Sun EZ-1, and an upright,
the Django is definitely harder for me to start than the other two
bikes when going uphill. Once under way, I find the Django climbs as
well as the other two bikes.
---
John Knez
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 06:22:27
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Michael Press wrote:
> I
>
> First let us make clear what we are talking about. Are you
> asking why many riders prefer using clip-less pedals? Or
> are you asking why you might consider using clip-less
> pedals? Since you have not used them, and are disinclined
> to try them, and since you choose a derisive tone to ask;
> I think you are attempting to initiate a heated discussion
> where there is no controversy. This matter has been
> discussed at length in r.b.t. as you could discover for
> yourself. You might remove r.b.t from the Newsgroups:
> header.
>
> --
> Michael Press
In some 25 posts to this thread, yours is the only one where things
approach "heated." Since I have no luck with search engines -- and
current information is better than anything possibly dated in any case
-- I suggest you exercise extreme discretion in reading usenet.
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 06:19:42
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
eflayer2 wrote:
> When I rode a bent for about 4 months I rode a Bacchetta Corsa. I live
> in a hilly geography and starting the sucker from a dead stop on any
> hill was an adventure. My first priority was to find a set of pedals
> that was easy to get into no matter what was going on in my head or
> with the terrain. The advice was to go for two sided something or
> others with a lot of float. I went for Bebops in stainless steel and
> they worked rekably well. Those cleats could find those pedals no
> matter what I looked like flailing to find those pedals. Alas, in the
> end, having my feet in front of my face all the time was not the
> posture for me, but the pedals were da bomb. Another day there will be
> a less radical bent in my life I am certain of that.
Curious...whatsamatta with the Corsa, exactly? Like, are you really
tall or overweight or something?
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 17:15:56
From: eflayer2
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
When I rode a bent for about 4 months I rode a Bacchetta Corsa. I live
in a hilly geography and starting the sucker from a dead stop on any
hill was an adventure. My first priority was to find a set of pedals
that was easy to get into no matter what was going on in my head or
with the terrain. The advice was to go for two sided something or
others with a lot of float. I went for Bebops in stainless steel and
they worked rekably well. Those cleats could find those pedals no
matter what I looked like flailing to find those pedals. Alas, in the
end, having my feet in front of my face all the time was not the
posture for me, but the pedals were da bomb. Another day there will be
a less radical bent in my life I am certain of that.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 12:25:16
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> going clipless?
>
> Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
> the controversy over helmets?
>
> (Seriously!)
>
Well NYC, I have used clipless pedals on my df, for part of a tour, then
found out that I had not given myself time to adjust to them, and almost
had a loaded touring bike on top of me on the ground! Not fun, so I went
back to the platforms that came with the bike. But for rec / fun /
fitness rides clipless are the way to go, from what I can tell, imo. I
still use platforms on my commuter df. But plan to use my Look clipless
pedal system on my bent when I get a few more miles under my belt. Going
fast on a bent if fun, and i think the clipless will help with this.
Ken
-
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles
Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 17:18:46
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
On 20 Feb 2006 15:44:43 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
>going clipless?
It depends on the 'bent. It can be tiring to keep your feet on the
pedals when the cranks are positioned in a manner that puts your feet
well ahead of your knees. Clipless shoes make this easier by
eliminating the need to use muscles to just keep the leg in place.
>Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
>the controversy over helmets?
This is more of a "depends on the bike and rider" issue. Extreme
'bents can be a nuisance to ride with conventional shoes, while others
are no trouble at all. One of my neighbors has one of the latter; he
rides with regular shoes and has no problem doing so. One of the
other 'bents I see on a semi-regular basis has a rider position that's
so low and extended that the idea of riding it without a cleated shoe
would be decidedly unappetizing to me.
Helmets are a matter of predicted need, not apparent need...unless, of
course, you're in that very rare circumstance where a collision
between your head and another object is about to occur, in which case
the perception of need may shift after it's too late to change the
equipment. Clipless pedals, if they are truly needed at all, will be
made apparent as a necessity in short order.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 03:14:06
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> >...
> > The recumbent industry has
> > generally taken the former option, even on higher end bikes. The fact
> > that many recumbents come equipped with a set of platform pedals that
> > cost the manufacturer very little should not be seen as an endorsement
> > for the general use on recumbents other than those with low bottom
> > brackets intended for short and/or casual riding.
>
> So...are my knees gonna get messed up or something if I don't use
> clipless pedals? Just what are they, um, good for? Is this the
> equivalent of wearing spandex -- no big deal -- or more like the
> difference between a 'bent and an upwrong -- like night and day??
Ride with platform pedals until you are very tired (e.g. long hilly
double metric on a hot, windy day on poor roads with a group that is
slightly stronger than you are) and try to keep your feet on the pedals
- then you will understand why foot retention systems are important on
a recumbent bicycle.
--
Tom Sherman
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 02:34:43
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> "Necessarily", no. Especially the case on a compact or long setup where
> the bottom bracket is fairly well under the seat. But the higher the
> bottom bracket in relation to the seat the more it becomes a tangible
> effort to hold your feet in place, and that gets more pronounced the
> longer the trip.
I've never felt uncomfortable on a DF with just regular ol' pedals, so
whatever their benefits, I'd still not adopt them for upright
riding...but 'bents I dunno, so I wonder. But if it ain't close to
"necessary" to be "practically necessary" then I probably wouldn't miss
'em, still.
Damn, can't wait to take delivery in ch!! I know some very nice
hills and bumpy paths I can try out the SMGTe on....
> Nothing like it. They make your pedalling more efficient and they make
> the ride more comfortable over distance with a high BB as you don't have
> to use effort holding your feet up. You've just invested A Lot Of $$$s
> on comfort, why compromise it by holding your feet up in the air with
> muscle power, and wasting energy compressing sneaker soles?
Is it that bad? I don't really remember from my test ride any such
issue, though thinking things through later on, I did wonder whether it
took any effort to keep the feet "up"...but then again, I just figured
that such effort was minimal, only slightly more than having to breathe
or something like that!
> People use clipless pedals and dedicated cycle shoes on 'bents for the
> same reason they increasingly do on DFs meant for performance/distance
> riding. They work better.
Like, do I go much faster? Even 10% sounds a bit low, though that'd be
enough to catch my attention. 5%, 3%...I'm not sure if I'd care.
Otherwise, I'd go do fairing, etc. -- even wear spandex! But I don't
imagine these things to add significantly to my overall experience, or
sheer speed, or just physical comfort. Are pedals about as important
as spandex for areodynamics?
> I hugely recommend you look into clipless for your Streetmachine, they
> just make it easier and nicer to ride as soon as you're past anything
> like a mile or two. They're not hard to use, my gf started on clipless
> at the same time she got used to a 'bent, because it meant not bothering
> to change the pedals when she borrowed my bike. She borrowed my SPuD
> sandals too, which are a size too big for her, and she still managed
> okay. You can get pedals with a platform on one side and a mech on the
> other so you can still use the bike easily without dedicated cycle
> shoes, though for any serious distance cycle shoes improve your comfort
> and efficiency irrespective of whether you're using clipless pedals,
> straps and clips, or just platforms.
Um, I've gone up to seventy-some-odd miles in one shot (well, maybe
with like two fifteen minutes breaks for sight-seeing and so forth) and
don't remember feeling uncomfortable in just sneakers and regular
pedals with a lil' bit o' teeth. How do "cycling shoes" improve
things? I think they're the ones with the stiff hard soles, right?
Seems like you'd want to be able to flex your foot every which way,
especially over distance! I don't mean just flex at the ankle, I mean
flex every which way, the foot itself. I just can't imagine who a
"stuck" feeling, when strapped or clipped in, could be comfortable,
though I can guess at how it's supposed to be more physically
efficient. But the loss of power is, what, less than the interest a
bank issues on a regular savings account, I bet?
> 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: 21 Feb 2006 16:43:10
From: wafflycat
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140518083.204848.103100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Like, do I go much faster? Even 10% sounds a bit low, though that'd be
> enough to catch my attention. 5%, 3%...I'm not sure if I'd care.
>
> Otherwise, I'd go do fairing, etc. -- even wear spandex! But I don't
> imagine these things to add significantly to my overall experience, or
> sheer speed, or just physical comfort. Are pedals about as important
> as spandex for areodynamics?
I was a reluctant convert to clipless.
Basically I was given a pair of Look shoes free of charge. So my other half
bought me the pedals. Until that point I'd never used clipless, didn't want
to try them. thought they looked dangerous and couldn't possibly make any
real difference etc., etc., etc...
Then I tried them.
The difference is *noticeable* More speed for same effort, or same speed for
less effort. Pedalling is so much more efficient the difference is
noticeable. You are effectively pulling on the upstroke as well as pushing
on the downstroke, so you don't have to push as hard on the downstroke.
Going uphill becomes easier - ntoiceably so. Clipping in and out qucikly
becomes second nature. Oh - and prior to using clipless, I had aching knees
& calves.. not any more. I would not willingly go back to 'normal' pedals.
And I'm a middle-aged 'pootler' getting benefit from using clipless - you
really don't have to be a speed freak to get benefit from them.
Cheers, helen s
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 13:55:05
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
wafflycat wrote:
> I was a reluctant convert to clipless.
> Then I tried them.
>
> The difference is *noticeable* More speed for same effort, or same speed
> for less effort. Pedalling is so much more efficient the difference is
> noticeable. You are effectively pulling on the upstroke as well as
> pushing on the downstroke, so you don't have to push as hard on the
> downstroke. Going uphill becomes easier - ntoiceably so. Clipping in and
> out qucikly becomes second nature. Oh - and prior to using clipless, I
> had aching knees & calves.. not any more. I would not willingly go back
> to 'normal' pedals. And I'm a middle-aged 'pootler' getting benefit from
> using clipless - you really don't have to be a speed freak to get
> benefit from them.
Your experience isn't typical for rider with more developed leg muscles.
When you "pull up" you're using the leg "flexors" which are much weaker
than leg "extensors". When your extensors get strong enough, they'll use
all of your cardio-vascular capacity by themselves, so there isn't any
gain by adding the flexors, except for short (anaerobic) efforts.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 09:51:23
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> all of your cardio-vascular capacity by themselves, so there isn't any
> gain by adding the flexors, except for short (anaerobic) efforts.
Or "small hills", as we call them here... ;-)
For "large hills" being clipped in makes it easier to spin up, which is
a much better way on a 'bent, so you're still winning.
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: 22 Feb 2006 07:01:10
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> all of your cardio-vascular capacity by themselves, so there isn't any
>> gain by adding the flexors, except for short (anaerobic) efforts.
>
>
> Or "small hills", as we call them here... ;-)
>
> For "large hills" being clipped in makes it easier to spin up, which is
> a much better way on a 'bent, so you're still winning.
I agree that it's easier to pedal at high cadence with feet attached to
the pedals. It's probably more efficient, too.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 07:33:06
From: wafflycat
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:mImdnSS63e2X_2be4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> Your experience isn't typical for rider with more developed leg muscles.
> When you "pull up" you're using the leg "flexors" which are much weaker
> than leg "extensors". When your extensors get strong enough, they'll use
> all of your cardio-vascular capacity by themselves, so there isn't any
> gain by adding the flexors, except for short (anaerobic) efforts.
You've seen my legs, then?
And when my extensors use all of my cardiovascular capacity, will I black
out from lack of cardiovascular capacity to my brain?
Cheers, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, helen s
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 06:56:31
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:mImdnSS63e2X_2be4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>>
>> Your experience isn't typical for rider with more developed leg
>> muscles. When you "pull up" you're using the leg "flexors" which are
>> much weaker than leg "extensors". When your extensors get strong
>> enough, they'll use all of your cardio-vascular capacity by
>> themselves, so there isn't any gain by adding the flexors, except for
>> short (anaerobic) efforts.
>
>
> You've seen my legs, then?
>
> And when my extensors use all of my cardiovascular capacity, will I
> black out from lack of cardiovascular capacity to my brain?
>
> Cheers, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, helen s
I think it's pretty uncommon to black out from anaerobic exertion
(likely severe evolutionary penalty to passing out when running from the
saber tooth). I can push myself into some symptoms of low brain oxygen
such as tunnel and monochromatic vision (on rare heroic occasions, but
also sometimes when just rising from the sofa). When I'm doing a long
sustained effort that I want to be right at my aerobic maximum, I can
judge it accurately by the slight numbness I get in my upper lip,
another symptom I think of blood being diverted from my face.
If you get better *sustained* performance when recruiting extra leg
muscles, then you have either girly legs or a lion's heart -- I couldn't
guess with certainty, but I am certain that your legs aren't taxing your
C-V system as much as mine are.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 12:39:20
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
>> You've seen my legs, then?
>> Cheers, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, helen s
> ... you have either girly legs or a lion's heart...
I'd guess someone with a name like "helen s" will have girly legs.
:^)
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 14:11:33
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
dvt wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> wafflycat wrote:
>
>
>>> You've seen my legs, then?
>
>
>>> Cheers, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, helen s
>
>
>> ... you have either girly legs or a lion's heart...
>
>
> I'd guess someone with a name like "helen s" will have girly legs.
>
> :^)
>
I figured she wouldn't mind being called that...
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 12:42:46
From: John Knez
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> I've never felt uncomfortable on a DF with just regular ol' pedals, so
> whatever their benefits, I'd still not adopt them for upright
> riding...but 'bents I dunno, so I wonder. But if it ain't close to
> "necessary" to be "practically necessary" then I probably wouldn't miss
> 'em, still.
>
> Damn, can't wait to take delivery in ch!! I know some very nice
> hills and bumpy paths I can try out the SMGTe on....
>
>
>>Nothing like it. They make your pedalling more efficient and they make
>>the ride more comfortable over distance with a high BB as you don't have
>>to use effort holding your feet up. You've just invested A Lot Of $$$s
>>on comfort, why compromise it by holding your feet up in the air with
>>muscle power, and wasting energy compressing sneaker soles?
>
>
> Is it that bad? I don't really remember from my test ride any such
> issue, though thinking things through later on, I did wonder whether it
> took any effort to keep the feet "up"...but then again, I just figured
> that such effort was minimal, only slightly more than having to breathe
> or something like that!
>
>
When I first got my Django, I rode it happily with the platform pedals
that came with it. I was satisfied with it and didn't see a need to do
anything about the pedals. About a month after getting it I went
clipless, motivated by a sale and a good salesman. After the break in
period (they do take some getting used to) it really was a revelation.
The thing I really liked about them initially was how much they improved
my acceleration from a stop. As time went on I grew to appreciate how
nice they were for hills and long rides. I ride in a fairly hilly area,
and I find the ability to assist the pushing leg with the opposite one
pulling very helpful when climbing hills. On level to rolling terrain I
find it easier to maintain a higher speed when I can pedal 360
degrees. I think they let me ride farther with less fatigue.
I can understand the hesitancy to switch. I had it too. Go clipless, I
doubt you'll regret it.
---
John Knez
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 11:51:31
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> I've never felt uncomfortable on a DF with just regular ol' pedals, so
> whatever their benefits, I'd still not adopt them for upright
> riding...
Thus speaks the man who hasn't tried them... They make your life easier
on a long ride, and I mean on a DF as well, what's not to like here?
> But if it ain't close to
> "necessary" to be "practically necessary" then I probably wouldn't miss
> 'em, still.
You can ride a Streetmachine without clipless with no great trouble.
People do. But I'm not one of them, because I prefer to be more
efficient and more comfortable, especially when there's little reason
not to. I prefer platforms on the Brompton folder I use as an urban
hack bike because it means I don't have to put on special shoes to use
the bike, but that's not really an issue if I'm off for a long ride, and
if you use a pedal with platform one side and a mech the other it's not
an issue anyway.
> Is it that bad?
How bad is bad?
> I don't really remember from my test ride any such
> issue, though thinking things through later on, I did wonder whether it
> took any effort to keep the feet "up"...but then again, I just figured
> that such effort was minimal, only slightly more than having to breathe
> or something like that!
Round the block or for a couple of miles it's a non issue. I was riding
a Speedmachine on Saturday on platforms, no trouble because I didn't go
far. Over several hours and dozens of miles it will gradually make
itself more known. It doesn't take a /lot/ of effort, but it's effort
there is no reason to make.
> Like, do I go much faster? Even 10% sounds a bit low, though that'd be
> enough to catch my attention. 5%, 3%...I'm not sure if I'd care.
You are more efficient over the course of a ride, which means you get
less tired. On hills you can pull as well as push which makes them
easier. If you don't care to make your life easier, why get such a nice
bike?
> Otherwise, I'd go do fairing, etc. -- even wear spandex! But I don't
> imagine these things to add significantly to my overall experience, or
> sheer speed, or just physical comfort. Are pedals about as important
> as spandex for areodynamics?
They are completely fundamental to driving /any/ bike. The further you
drive it, the more important their efficiency is. You've just bought a
long distance touring bike... do the math! ;-)
> Um, I've gone up to seventy-some-odd miles in one shot (well, maybe
> with like two fifteen minutes breaks for sight-seeing and so forth) and
> don't remember feeling uncomfortable in just sneakers and regular
> pedals with a lil' bit o' teeth. How do "cycling shoes" improve
> things? I think they're the ones with the stiff hard soles, right?
> Seems like you'd want to be able to flex your foot every which way,
> especially over distance! I don't mean just flex at the ankle, I mean
> flex every which way, the foot itself.
Touring and most MTB shoes aren't /that/ stiff, just stiff enough to
make a useful difference. The reason most touring cyclists wear
dedicated cycling shoes is like the reason they use panniers rather than
rucksacks for the most part: they work better, and they've been found to
work better after comparison with the alternative.
> I just can't imagine who a
> "stuck" feeling, when strapped or clipped in, could be comfortable
That you can't imagine it is the key here: you have no way of knowing
without trying it, so try it! Lots of people hum and har about
clipless, very few regret moving over after trying them out. A bit like
recumbents, really...
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: 21 Feb 2006 10:28:26
From: wafflycat
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140479083.605834.6930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> going clipless?
>
> Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
> the controversy over helmets?
>
> (Seriously!)
>
No, using clipless are not a necessity on a 'bent, but I certainly see them
as desirable. Why? Well, example. I have a 'bent trike (Ice T) and with
positioning of feet on a 'bent, if you take your feet off the pedals
*before* coming to a stop, it is possible for your leg to be dragged
backwards under the frame. Not nice. Using clipless means your feet are not
going to fall off the pedal before you stop, so you are effectively
minimising the risk of leg suck. Toeclips with straps would also provide
security, but clipless are just so much easier to use than a traditional
platform pedal with toeclips & straps. I was also an unwilling convert to
clipless but now I would never willingly go back to using platform pedals
with or without toeclips on either my 'bent or my upright bikes. I thought
clipless were unnecessary/too difficult to use, but once I gave them a go -
no looking back so to speak. I use Look pedals by the way.
Cheers, helen s
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 11:58:45
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
wafflycat wrote:
> I have a 'bent trike (Ice T) and
> with positioning of feet on a 'bent, if you take your feet off the
> pedals *before* coming to a stop, it is possible for your leg to be
> dragged backwards under the frame. Not nice. Using clipless means your
> feet are not going to fall off the pedal before you stop, so you are
> effectively minimising the risk of leg suck.
Though this is more of an issue on an ICE T (or other low seat height
machine) than a Streetmachine. Being used to the Streetmachine, I
nearly hurt myself trying a trike on Saturday because I came to a stop
and put my foot down early like I'm used to doing and nearly ran it
over. Not nice, as noted above, but not really an issue with the seat
height of the SMGT unless you have /very/ long legs (I tend to hop off
mine as I'm stopping, rather than wait to stop before taking feet off
the pedals).
> I was also an
> unwilling convert to clipless but now I would never willingly go back to
> using platform pedals with or without toeclips on either my 'bent or my
> upright bikes. I thought clipless were unnecessary/too difficult to use,
> but once I gave them a go - no looking back so to speak.
XYZ NYC, read that paragraph about 20 times to get the idea. People use
them because they /work better/, regardless of their preconceptions.
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: 21 Feb 2006 09:58:06
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> going clipless?
"Necessarily", no. Especially the case on a compact or long setup where
the bottom bracket is fairly well under the seat. But the higher the
bottom bracket in relation to the seat the more it becomes a tangible
effort to hold your feet in place, and that gets more pronounced the
longer the trip.
> Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
> the controversy over helmets?
Nothing like it. They make your pedalling more efficient and they make
the ride more comfortable over distance with a high BB as you don't have
to use effort holding your feet up. You've just invested A Lot Of $$$s
on comfort, why compromise it by holding your feet up in the air with
muscle power, and wasting energy compressing sneaker soles?
People use clipless pedals and dedicated cycle shoes on 'bents for the
same reason they increasingly do on DFs meant for performance/distance
riding. They work better.
I hugely recommend you look into clipless for your Streetmachine, they
just make it easier and nicer to ride as soon as you're past anything
like a mile or two. They're not hard to use, my gf started on clipless
at the same time she got used to a 'bent, because it meant not bothering
to change the pedals when she borrowed my bike. She borrowed my SPuD
sandals too, which are a size too big for her, and she still managed
okay. You can get pedals with a platform on one side and a mech on the
other so you can still use the bike easily without dedicated cycle
shoes, though for any serious distance cycle shoes improve your comfort
and efficiency irrespective of whether you're using clipless pedals,
straps and clips, or just platforms.
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: 21 Feb 2006 01:18:01
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>
> Most low-end upright bicycles are sold with platform pedals on the
> assumption that an experienced rider
I'm assuming you mean "INexperienced rider" there, right?
> may not be comfortable with using
> foot retention systems (e.g. "clipless", Power Grips, clips and
> straps).
Yeah, I don't think I like 'em myself, and I'm fairly hard-core for
twenty-some-odd years now (I say "fairly" 'cause I put in the mileage
and hills and weather conditions, but don't know nothing about Rohloff
hubs, Rotor cranks, clipless pedals, etc. -- Grip Shift was a
revolution for me!).
> Higher end uprights are generally sold without pedals with the
> assumption that the buyers will be experienced riders with established
> preferences for a particular pedal type.
I actually traded in the pedals that came with my Trek 1000c for
regular ones!
> The recumbent industry has
> generally taken the former option, even on higher end bikes. The fact
> that many recumbents come equipped with a set of platform pedals that
> cost the manufacturer very little should not be seen as an endorsement
> for the general use on recumbents other than those with low bottom
> brackets intended for short and/or casual riding.
So...are my knees gonna get messed up or something if I don't use
clipless pedals? Just what are they, um, good for? Is this the
equivalent of wearing spandex -- no big deal -- or more like the
difference between a 'bent and an upwrong -- like night and day??
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 22 Feb 2006 22:10:39
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
On 21 Feb 2006 01:18:01 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com >
wrote:
<snip >
>So...are my knees gonna get messed up or something if I don't use
>clipless pedals? Just what are they, um, good for? Is this the
>equivalent of wearing spandex -- no big deal -- or more like the
>difference between a 'bent and an upwrong -- like night and day??
>
I ride a Tour Easy, a fairly upright LWB recumbent. It came with
platform pedals and toe clips. After riding the stock pedals for a
couple of years I went with clipless for a while, and really did like
it at first. After three months or so it seemed that my knees were
about to start complaining from the lack of lateral motion. My size
14's dont fit far enough into most toe clip cages, so I decided to try
a pair of Power Grips.
http://www.powergrips.com/
My knees and I are liking them just fine.
On a more laid back recumbent, and maybe especially on some of the
really low models having your feet actually locked to the pedal might
save you from some very painful leg suck incidents.
Indiana Mike
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 22:33:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
In article
<1140513481.485832.121780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Most low-end upright bicycles are sold with platform pedals on the
> > assumption that an experienced rider
>
> I'm assuming you mean "INexperienced rider" there, right?
>
> > may not be comfortable with using
> > foot retention systems (e.g. "clipless", Power Grips, clips and
> > straps).
>
> Yeah, I don't think I like 'em myself, and I'm fairly hard-core for
> twenty-some-odd years now (I say "fairly" 'cause I put in the mileage
> and hills and weather conditions, but don't know nothing about Rohloff
> hubs, Rotor cranks, clipless pedals, etc. -- Grip Shift was a
> revolution for me!).
>
> > Higher end uprights are generally sold without pedals with the
> > assumption that the buyers will be experienced riders with established
> > preferences for a particular pedal type.
>
> I actually traded in the pedals that came with my Trek 1000c for
> regular ones!
>
> > The recumbent industry has
> > generally taken the former option, even on higher end bikes. The fact
> > that many recumbents come equipped with a set of platform pedals that
> > cost the manufacturer very little should not be seen as an endorsement
> > for the general use on recumbents other than those with low bottom
> > brackets intended for short and/or casual riding.
>
> So...are my knees gonna get messed up or something if I don't use
> clipless pedals? Just what are they, um, good for? Is this the
> equivalent of wearing spandex -- no big deal -- or more like the
> difference between a 'bent and an upwrong -- like night and day??
First let us make clear what we are talking about. Are you
asking why many riders prefer using clip-less pedals? Or
are you asking why you might consider using clip-less
pedals? Since you have not used them, and are disinclined
to try them, and since you choose a derisive tone to ask;
I think you are attempting to initiate a heated discussion
where there is no controversy. This matter has been
discussed at length in r.b.t. as you could discover for
yourself. You might remove r.b.t from the Newsgroups:
header.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 18:43:18
From:
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per NYC XYZ:
> >Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> >going clipless?
>
> I've never ridden a 'bent, but my impression is that as the chain wheel gets
> higher and higher relative to the rider's hips, at some point something is
> needed to help keep the rider's feet on the pedals.
>
> Seems like "clipless" in this case just mean "something to keep the rider's
> feet on the pedals" since toe clips and straps aren't getting much publicity
> lately.
Well, as a dedicated retro-grouch, I'd vote for heel clips. ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 18:07:01
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140479083.605834.6930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> > going clipless?
> >
> > Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
> > the controversy over helmets?
> >
> > (Seriously!)
> >
>
> Dunno where you heard that - recumbents were around long before clipless
> pedals were widespread. I was at the Seattle Bike Expo this weekend, and
> they had lots of 'bents w/o clipless pedals....
Most low-end upright bicycles are sold with platform pedals on the
assumption that an experienced rider may not be comfortable with using
foot retention systems (e.g. "clipless", Power Grips, clips and
straps). Higher end uprights are generally sold without pedals with the
assumption that the buyers will be experienced riders with established
preferences for a particular pedal type. The recumbent industry has
generally taken the former option, even on higher end bikes. The fact
that many recumbents come equipped with a set of platform pedals that
cost the manufacturer very little should not be seen as an endorsement
for the general use on recumbents other than those with low bottom
brackets intended for short and/or casual riding.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 17:59:52
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per NYC XYZ:
> >Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> >going clipless?
>
> I've never ridden a 'bent, but my impression is that as the chain wheel gets
> higher and higher relative to the rider's hips, at some point something is
> needed to help keep the rider's feet on the pedals.
>
> Seems like "clipless" in this case just mean "something to keep the rider's
> feet on the pedals" since toe clips and straps aren't getting much publicity
> lately.
Your deductions are correct.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 19:24:23
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Per NYC XYZ:
>Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
>going clipless?
I've never ridden a 'bent, but my impression is that as the chain wheel gets
higher and higher relative to the rider's hips, at some point something is
needed to help keep the rider's feet on the pedals.
Seems like "clipless" in this case just mean "something to keep the rider's
feet on the pedals" since toe clips and straps aren't getting much publicity
lately.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 16:00:25
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
>
> Dunno where you heard that - recumbents were around long before clipless
> pedals were widespread. I was at the Seattle Bike Expo this weekend, and
> they had lots of 'bents w/o clipless pedals.
That's this guy's opinion (just before the middle of the page), which
made me wonder if many others share it:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/13q11/cycling/smgt.html
> maybe there is a controversy, but I hadn't heard about it. Nobody tells me
> anything.
Well, I'm certainly the last to know. Just found out about this
clipless thing myself!
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2006 15:52:17
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Recumbent = Clipless??
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1140479083.605834.6930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Say, what's with this notion that riding a 'bent necessarily means
> going clipless?
>
> Not that I ever use any special shoes or pedals myself...are they like
> the controversy over helmets?
>
> (Seriously!)
>
Dunno where you heard that - recumbents were around long before clipless
pedals were widespread. I was at the Seattle Bike Expo this weekend, and
they had lots of 'bents w/o clipless pedals.
maybe there is a controversy, but I hadn't heard about it. Nobody tells me
anything.
|
|
