| |
Main
Date: 25 Oct 2007 12:12:57
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
apparently.
Weird.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 23:22:15
From: ilaboo
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
could be a medical condition cardiac problems ,seizures ( non jacksonian)
drugs, medications etc
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193339577.469836.227250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 15:23:45
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Nov 13, 7:40 am, cyclingthi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2:12 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> > dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> i think it has happened to us all.
Nope. Absolutely not.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 04:40:56
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 2:12 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
i think it has happened to us all. you are so relaxed, there is
nothing on the road and you are in your own world and then suddenly it
hits you and a subtle move on the handle bar and you are going down. i
have never fall like that but i have had my close calls, it is mostly
when i ride B pace rides, so my advice is to keep it live and keep it
strong, stay with the A pacers, even if you stay at the back
carlos
www.bikingthings.com
> > Get Faster, Enjoy Cycling, Get Fit, Live Better.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 07:19:26
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 31, 7:40 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>
> On the trike one can ignore things like loose gravel, wet manhole
> covers, etc. that will dump the unwary cyclist.
>
> If I ever have time to go touring, I will use a trike for the above
> reason. The extra stability would be welcome when tired, on a steep
> climb, etc.
That is true...but that's usually no big deal for a rider, so I think
for many it falls under the "nice but not necessary" category of
bicycle features. AFAICT, it's the only feature of a trike -- besides
cup-holders! =)
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:06:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1194880766.893236.154950@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 7:40 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On the trike one can ignore things like loose gravel, wet manhole
>> covers, etc. that will dump the unwary cyclist.
>>
>> If I ever have time to go touring, I will use a trike for the above
>> reason. The extra stability would be welcome when tired, on a steep
>> climb, etc.
>
> That is true...but that's usually no big deal for a rider, so I think
> for many it falls under the "nice but not necessary" category of
> bicycle features. AFAICT, it's the only feature of a trike -- besides
> cup-holders! =)
Mr. Sherman of ARBR has finally found a kindred sprit in NYC XYZ of
nyc.bicycles. They are both heavily into trivia and both think themselves
witty. It is really just one dunce talking to another dunce, but what can
you expect from unmoderated newsgroups.
All unmoderated newsgroups are for idiots! If you are here, then you are an
idiot!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 08:01:52
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Turn your monitor upside if top-posting bothers you so much.
And that helmet belongs on your ass, not your head, obviously. =)
On Nov 1, 12:37 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> God, he/she/it's a top-poster, too.
>
> (Quoting much less attribution not necessary, right?!?)
>
> ROTFL
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 08:55:55
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> Turn your monitor upside if top-posting bothers you so much.
>
> And that helmet belongs on your ass, not your head, obviously. =)
>
>
>
> On Nov 1, 12:37 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> God, he/she/it's a top-poster, too.
>>
>> (Quoting much less attribution not necessary, right?!?)
>>
>> ROTFL
Scathing retort.
Bill "forcing reader to sort out due to PAW's inconsiderate nature" S.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 08:00:31
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 31, 11:21 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> It's certainly not if you're reading a Bill Sornson post! There won't
> be any meaningful content anyway!
>
> (It's funny watching his frequent confusion, though! ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
He's just one of those boring pedants lampooned by Ogden Nash in his
ditty "The Purist":
I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist.
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 08:54:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Go take some more powdered steroids, knucklebrain.
Bill "adhering to new rule (per PAW) of no quoting or attributing required"
S.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 09:07:10
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
LMAO!!
Is "Bill Sornson" the new Ed Dolan??
On Oct 31, 8:46 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>
> Who is "you"?
>
> Context please!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 09:06:02
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
You can't find "soc.history.world-war-ii"??
And that's "PaW", not "POW".
I think you're wearing your helmet at the wrong end, mister.
On Oct 31, 12:40 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Didn't think so. (Gee, POW's anonymous AND a liar -- what a surprise!
> LOL )
>
> Bill "posting style proves the point" S.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 09:37:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
God, he/she/it's a top-poster, too.
(Quoting much less attribution not necessary, right?!?)
ROTFL
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 20:21:08
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 31, 10:47 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> But...but...PAW said quoting ain't necessary!!!
It's certainly not if you're reading a Bill Sornson post! There won't
be any meaningful content anyway!
(It's funny watching his frequent confusion, though! ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 13:34:38
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It is fun to cross after the train goes by, while everyone else is
> waiting for the gate to rise.
I hope it's not a multi-track crossing. That second train hidden
behind the first one can ruin your day.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 13:21:54
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 1:40 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com > wrote:
>
>
> Too low to the ground? I've had people in gigantic landbarges stopped next
> to me at a traffic light and shout out of their window at me that I was too
> low to see. I ask them who they're talking to. "You", they answer. I tell
> them that either they're crazy for talking to something invisible, or I'm
> not invisible after all. I don't think most of them get it.
Heh...I had a well-meaning old fellow pull up next to me in his car
one night and say that I should have lights on my 'bent. I told him
he should just slow down. He didn't say anything more; I hope he
agreed!
> I know a fellow that used to ride a NoCom in Chicago, on the streets! I know
> a another fellow that rode a Bacchetta Strada in Chicago, too. He got hit by
> a car, as high and visible as he was.
Well, those things are not all that high, in "absolute terms," and
maybe folks are worse drivers in Chicago than NYC. I've actually
commuted with my SMGTe many, many times without incident.
> I own your bike's cousin, the Speedmachine. She can be a trecherous bitch at
> times. Mostly a quick and comfortable ride, but let your attention waver for
> a moment and you'll find yourself dumped, unceremoniuosly, out on your ass.
> I admit to being a member of the clan klutz and I don't chew gum and walk
> simultaneously and remaining in control on two wheels is not totally
> intuitive for me. I admit to hammering through turns more consertvatively
> than excellent bike handlers, but still, I go through the twisties a lot
> faster than the average schmo I pass on the bike trail.
>
> The trike takes the balance thing right out of the equation.
But on turns, etc., you still have to watch out! Besides, balance is
so second-nature, it's almost not a factor for me (and I suspect for
most "serious" cyclists). I wonder if trike fans are maybe, um, less
competent cyclists, as it were....
> On the trike I
> pedal like mad and all I need to do is pay attention to what's around me.
Same thing on any bike, for those who are good cyclists.
> I
> ride with a friend on Wednesday nights, usually a few blocks away from his
> house in the land of garage-mahals and green lawns and smooth low traffic
> streets. We do five mile circuitous loops. The first time, a few weeks ago,
> when we did the ride with lights I noticed that my cheeks hurt. The ride was
> so much fun that I was unconsciously grinning in the dark.
But how's that unique to a trike? I still grin on my 'bent. (I'm
always grinning anyway; it's all too cute and funny, everything is, in
life.) I'm sure I'd grin on a trike, too. But I don't see what makes
them really special.
I was actually thinking of getting my old dad one, just so he gets
more physical than simply walking the dog. But other than that, I
really don't see the big deal.
> I'm not a bent newbe either. I bought my first bent in '99. I still have a
> SM and an Earthcycles Sunset and I bought a Trice in February and I ride
> about 2000-3000 miles a year.
I'm not trying to put down trikes. Just chit-chatting here. I'm sure
they're fun for me, too. I'll probably get one one day, too.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:40:02
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 29, 1:40 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> I own your bike's cousin, the Speedmachine. She can be a trecherous bitch at
>> times. Mostly a quick and comfortable ride, but let your attention waver for
>> a moment and you'll find yourself dumped, unceremoniuosly, out on your ass.
>> I admit to being a member of the clan klutz and I don't chew gum and walk
>> simultaneously and remaining in control on two wheels is not totally
>> intuitive for me. I admit to hammering through turns more consertvatively
>> than excellent bike handlers, but still, I go through the twisties a lot
>> faster than the average schmo I pass on the bike trail.
>>
>> The trike takes the balance thing right out of the equation.
>
> But on turns, etc., you still have to watch out! Besides, balance is
> so second-nature, it's almost not a factor for me (and I suspect for
> most "serious" cyclists). I wonder if trike fans are maybe, um, less
> competent cyclists, as it were....
>
>> On the trike I
>> pedal like mad and all I need to do is pay attention to what's around me.
>
> Same thing on any bike, for those who are good cyclists....
On the trike one can ignore things like loose gravel, wet manhole
covers, etc. that will dump the unwary cyclist.
If I ever have time to go touring, I will use a trike for the above
reason. The extra stability would be welcome when tired, on a steep
climb, etc.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 04:26:01
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:fgb794$f93$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Prisoner at War wrote:
[....]
>>> On the trike I
>>> pedal like mad and all I need to do is pay attention to what's around
>>> me.
>>
>> Same thing on any bike, for those who are good cyclists....
>
> On the trike one can ignore things like loose gravel, wet manhole covers,
> etc. that will dump the unwary cyclist.
>
> If I ever have time to go touring, I will use a trike for the above
> reason. The extra stability would be welcome when tired, on a steep climb,
> etc.
I would think twice about ever using a trike on a tour. You will encounter
roads which are unsuited for a trike (such as narrow high speed highways
with no shoulders).
The best use of a trike is for around town and on bike trails. They are
dangerous on certain types of highways.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 13:12:13
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 3:00 pm, Brian Broderick <bribro...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> As to why people fall down:
>
> One fine afternoon, I was riding along the right side of the road on
> the Gettysburg College campus, with the curb on the right. There's a
> steep incline for about 10 seconds, and I stood up in the pedals so I
> could just power up through it. Suddenly, a girl in the French class
> I was avoiding walked out of a classroom, and waved at me.
> Unthinkingly, I took my hand off the bars, to wave (being the suave,
> debonair gentleman I am). Sadly, when standing in the pedals, a lot
> of your force is resisted by your arms on the bars. With one hand
> off, I imbalanced myself, swinging the bike directly into the curb,
> and myself over the bars. Que trauma.
Hey, didn't that racing movie from the '70s end almost jsut like that,
when the guy riding on his bike on campus meets a girl riding on her
bike and she's French....
See, I just can't imagine that. I can't remember ever forgetting that
I'm on a bike, such that I take my hands off the handlebars without
thinking, etc. I mean, I can ride without hands, and even make fairly
sharp turns at low speeds without hands (on an upright), but I'd never
simply forget that I'm on a bike and take my hands off without meaning
to.
I just don't get it. I guess you must have liked that girl a lot!
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 11:50:16
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
I just met a coworker yesterday like you. He's a friendly guy, but
given to manufacturing arguments out of nothing over nothing. Very
friendly, but prattles on about nothing for no reason, the kind of
person who disagrees that the sky is blue because it's gray to certain
animals, which he knows 'cause he had a pet rat once that a pet store
gave him for Halloween, never understood why people are afraid of
rats, people have such irrational phobias, like the GWOT right now,
which he can understand but thinks is being handled badly, blah blah
blah....
You people are kind of scary.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:20:11
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193856616.881842.35690@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> You people are kind of scary.
I'm downright terrifying.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 08:45:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Claire Petersky wrote:
> I'm downright terrifying...
...to "folson", anyway! LOL
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:46:39
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> I just met a coworker yesterday like you. He's a friendly guy, but
> given to manufacturing arguments out of nothing over nothing. Very
> friendly, but prattles on about nothing for no reason, the kind of
> person who disagrees that the sky is blue because it's gray to certain
> animals, which he knows 'cause he had a pet rat once that a pet store
> gave him for Halloween, never understood why people are afraid of
> rats, people have such irrational phobias, like the GWOT right now,
> which he can understand but thinks is being handled badly, blah blah
> blah....
>
> You people are kind of scary.
>
Who is "you"?
Context please!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:48:44
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> I just met a coworker yesterday like you. He's a friendly guy, but
>> given to manufacturing arguments out of nothing over nothing. Very
>> friendly, but prattles on about nothing for no reason, the kind of
>> person who disagrees that the sky is blue because it's gray to
>> certain animals, which he knows 'cause he had a pet rat once that a
>> pet store gave him for Halloween, never understood why people are
>> afraid of rats, people have such irrational phobias, like the GWOT
>> right now, which he can understand but thinks is being handled
>> badly, blah blah blah....
>>
>> You people are kind of scary.
>>
> Who is "you"?
>
> Context please!
Irony, thy name is Tom. LOL
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 14:00:28
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Brilliant.
(WHHHOOOSSHHHHHHHHH!)
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 08:37:29
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 30, 11:30 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> > ... I do know that some moderated NGs
> > even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
> > googlegroups archives.
>
> Citation?
soc.history.world.war.ii
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 09:40:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Didn't think so. (Gee, POW's anonymous AND a liar -- what a surprise!
LOL )
Bill "posting style proves the point" S.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 03:18:19
From:
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 30, 10:18 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com > wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I missed the non hot linked ref to the image on Flikr.
??
I don't understand the "non hot linked" part.
This is my first use of Flickr, so maybe I did something wrong. But
doesn't http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/ take you there?
Works for me!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 06:31:25
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193800699.469648.206190@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 10:18 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I missed the non hot linked ref to the image on Flikr.
>
> ??
>
> I don't understand the "non hot linked" part.
>
> This is my first use of Flickr, so maybe I did something wrong. But
> doesn't http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/ take you there?
>
> Works for me!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
That will, but this won't,
"...feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...",
which was the ref I saw when I went back up the thread to see what I was
missing.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:51:44
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"gotbent" <gotbent@spamtrap.com > wrote
>
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193800699.469648.206190@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 30, 10:18 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed the non hot linked ref to the image on Flikr.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> I don't understand the "non hot linked" part.
>>
>> This is my first use of Flickr, so maybe I did something wrong. But
>> doesn't http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/ take you there?
>>
>> Works for me!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
> That will, but this won't,
> "...feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...",
> which was the ref I saw when I went back up the thread to see what I was
> missing.
>
I wonder why you saw that...it's not what I saw...the link worked fine for
me.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:51:36
From:
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 30, 4:38 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com > wrote:
>
>
> > Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting
> > but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
> > ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
> > search engines and I don't have time to post a link.
>
> Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I think
> this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...
Nope, that's not it. Frame design is completely different, etc, etc,
etc.
But regarding the desirability of low trikes, this is interesting from
a "MASA Slingshot For Sale or Trade" post I googled up"
"My husband, neighbor and I have been riding it and it is a blast. Why
then you ask am I willing to part with it? Because I need something
that I can ride on the road. Ground clearance on the Slingshot is just
too limited for going over railroad tracks (which I have to do all the
time)"
I, too, prefer vehicles I can ride on the road!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:18:15
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193788296.972890.72300@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 4:38 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically
>> > interesting
>> > but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
>> > ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
>> > search engines and I don't have time to post a link.
>>
>> Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I
>> think
>> this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling
>> feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...
>
> Nope, that's not it. Frame design is completely different, etc, etc,
> etc.
>
> But regarding the desirability of low trikes, this is interesting from
> a "MASA Slingshot For Sale or Trade" post I googled up"
>
> "My husband, neighbor and I have been riding it and it is a blast. Why
> then you ask am I willing to part with it? Because I need something
> that I can ride on the road. Ground clearance on the Slingshot is just
> too limited for going over railroad tracks (which I have to do all the
> time)"
>
> I, too, prefer vehicles I can ride on the road!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Sorry, I missed the non hot linked ref to the image on Flikr. Definately not
a MASA. Modern trikes are amazing vehicles. My ICE QNT is quite dependable
and the most relaxed pleasurable ride I ever owned, and my past stable
included a Raleigh Grand Prix, Raleigh Super-Tourer a Raleigh Portage, a
Schwinn Super Sport SP frame turned into a Campi-Japanolo bike, a
Diamondback Ridgerunner, a Proflex 856, and RANS V-Rex. I also own an HPVelo
Speedmachine, an Earthcycles Sunset and the ICE QNT.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:35:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
gotbent aka FVTR wrote:
> ...
> Sorry, I missed the non hot linked ref to the image on Flikr. Definately not
> a MASA. Modern trikes are amazing vehicles. My ICE QNT is quite dependable
> and the most relaxed pleasurable ride I ever owned, and my past stable
> included a Raleigh Grand Prix, Raleigh Super-Tourer a Raleigh Portage, a
> Schwinn Super Sport SP frame turned into a Campi-Japanolo bike, a
> Diamondback Ridgerunner, a Proflex 856, and RANS V-Rex. I also own an HPVelo
> Speedmachine, an Earthcycles Sunset and the ICE QNT.
Only a weird person would own an Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer. We will
not even consider the implication of owning two (2) such bicycles.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Red and Purple Earth Cycle Sunset Lowracers
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 20:07:11
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 30, 4:38 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting
>>> but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
>>> ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
>>> search engines and I don't have time to post a link.
>> Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I think
>> this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...
>
> Nope, that's not it. Frame design is completely different, etc, etc,
> etc.
>
> But regarding the desirability of low trikes, this is interesting from
> a "MASA Slingshot For Sale or Trade" post I googled up"
>
> "My husband, neighbor and I have been riding it and it is a blast. Why
> then you ask am I willing to part with it? Because I need something
> that I can ride on the road. Ground clearance on the Slingshot is just
> too limited for going over railroad tracks (which I have to do all the
> time)"
>
> I, too, prefer vehicles I can ride on the road!
I have ridden over pretty rough railroad tracks at speed on my Earth
Cycles Dragonflyer tadpole trike. The rear suspension make the bumps
very tolerable, and there is no worry about losing balance. I can even
cross wet tracks at an angle with no real concern - do not try that on a
bicycle.
The (very rare and long out of production) MASA Slingshot is one of the
only long-wheel base tadpole trikes ever built. While some of the racing
tadpoles have low ground clearance, even they will go across most
railroad tracks without grounding out. Non-racing short wheelbase
tadpoles will handle anything up to fire roads.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:29:12
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::
> ::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
> ::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
> ::: angle.
> :::
> :: ...
> :::
> ::: I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
> ::: low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder
> ::: to ride. Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike -
> ::: made for going fast.
> ::
> :: Definitely.
> ::
> ::: How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
> ::
> ::
> :: Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
> ::
> ::http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
> ::
> :: The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
> :: info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
> :: owner is deceased.
> ::
>
> Hard for me to tell from looking, but it just looks uncomfortable. The seat
> looks like cloth hung loosely over metal at two ends. perhaps it's not
> that, though.
That pretty well describes it. The seat - or sling, or hammock, or
whatever you'd call it - doesn't feel too bad, actually. But as with
a hammock, there's a feeling of being sunk into it, not knowing if
you'll ever get out.
> However, it doesn't appear to be as low as I thought it woud
> be. With that big 700c (is that 700c?) wheel back there.
Close. Originally came with 3 tubulars, but the back rim corroded and
failed in storage. I put an old 27" clincher wheel on it to enable
riding.
> But I can't
> really tell how one is positioned in that thing. there a lot of bending
> metal bits there too. Once you're in it and riding, how does it feel?
The riding position makes me feel pretty much like a turtle on its
back. My feet are way high in front of me, so I'm kind of peering
around them at times. I can put considerable pressure on the pedals,
and that makes it scoot, but spinning seems awkward. Handling is
twitchy - one has to concentrate on not oversteering. Even riding a
straight line takes some concentration.
The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
activate the front wheels.
Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 04:19:29
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193768952.456332.140550@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..
[...]
> The riding position makes me feel pretty much like a turtle on its
> back. My feet are way high in front of me, so I'm kind of peering
> around them at times. I can put considerable pressure on the pedals,
> and that makes it scoot, but spinning seems awkward. Handling is
> twitchy - one has to concentrate on not oversteering. Even riding a
> straight line takes some concentration.
It is interesting to get feedback on recumbent trikes from one who is not
committed to them. Frank is quite right about tadpoles being hard to steer
at speed. A long delta trike does not have this problem nearly so much.
> The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
> anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
> banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
> the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
> activate the front wheels.
>
> Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
> twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
> I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.
The twitchiness of tadpoles is an eternal problem, but it takes someone like
Frank to point it out to the rest of us.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:41:44
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> :: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ::::
>> ::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
>> ::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
>> ::: angle.
>> :::
>> :: ...
>> :::
>> ::: I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
>> ::: low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder
>> ::: to ride. Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike -
>> ::: made for going fast.
>> ::
>> :: Definitely.
>> ::
>> ::: How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
>> ::
>> ::
>> :: Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
>> ::
>> ::http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
>> ::
>> :: The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
>> :: info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
>> :: owner is deceased.
>> ::
>>
>> Hard for me to tell from looking, but it just looks uncomfortable. The seat
>> looks like cloth hung loosely over metal at two ends. perhaps it's not
>> that, though.
>
> That pretty well describes it. The seat - or sling, or hammock, or
> whatever you'd call it - doesn't feel too bad, actually. But as with
> a hammock, there's a feeling of being sunk into it, not knowing if
> you'll ever get out.
Based on appearances, modern production tadpoles have much better seats.
>> However, it doesn't appear to be as low as I thought it woud
>> be. With that big 700c (is that 700c?) wheel back there.
>
> Close. Originally came with 3 tubulars, but the back rim corroded and
> failed in storage. I put an old 27" clincher wheel on it to enable
> riding.
>
>> But I can't
>> really tell how one is positioned in that thing. there a lot of bending
>> metal bits there too. Once you're in it and riding, how does it feel?
>
> The riding position makes me feel pretty much like a turtle on its
> back. My feet are way high in front of me, so I'm kind of peering
> around them at times. I can put considerable pressure on the pedals,
> and that makes it scoot, but spinning seems awkward. Handling is
> twitchy - one has to concentrate on not oversteering. Even riding a
> straight line takes some concentration.
Laid back with feet up is a great riding position - my favorite by far.
> The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
> anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
> banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
> the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
> activate the front wheels.
>
> Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
> twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
> I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.
Modern tadpole have much less complicated steering linkages, and the
better designed trikes have good direction stability, to the point they
go straight with only one front wheel braked.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 13:40:36
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193768952.456332.140550@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> :: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ::::
>> ::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
>> ::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
>> ::: angle.
snip >
> The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
> anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
> banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
> the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
> activate the front wheels.
>
> Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
> twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
> I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting but
very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work search
engines and I don't have time to post a link.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:43:24
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
gotbent aka FVTR wrote:
> ...You folks know how to work search
> engines and I don't have time to post a link.
No time to post a link? Are you running from a burning house? After all,
what is more important than Usenet posting? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 15:38:24
From: gotbent
Subject: Masa Slingshot linkRe: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"gotbent" <gotbent@spamtrap.com > wrote in message
news:47276ec6$0$26497$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193768952.456332.140550@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> :: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> ::::
>>> ::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
>>> ::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
>>> ::: angle.
> snip>
>> The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
>> anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
>> banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
>> the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
>> activate the front wheels.
>>
>> Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
>> twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
>> I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting
> but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
> ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
> search engines and I don't have time to post a link.
>
>
Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I think
this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling feature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-72157594333112951/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 15:06:56
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> >
> Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain type of
> trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat angle.
>
...
>
> I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
> low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder to ride.
> Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike - made for going
> fast.
Definitely.
> How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
owner is deceased.
>
>
> So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very low trike)
> in the last 25 years?
> Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been passed by
> some that just seem to fly.....
I think the last time I did a fairly extended test ride was about five
(?) years ago. I was in Albuquerque for a conference. There is (or
was) a shop there that specialized in recumbents. They let me take
about three different models out and ride them around the city. At
this point, I don't remember the details of those bikes, except that
they were all new (i.e. none were archaic designs), and they were
different from each other.
And it's not that they were bad rides, IIRC. It's just that I prefer
an upright bike.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 15:01:54
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:56 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote of his
recumbent trike:
>
>Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
>
>The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
>info is on it. I know it was expensive.
/
How does one pedal in a wet-suit? I mean, it looks like this thing
is missing pontoons or a snorkel or something for the puddles.
At least the bar-cons and hub brakes give it some redeeming features.
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:48:09
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:56 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote of his
> recumbent trike:
>
>> Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
>>
>> The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
>> info is on it. I know it was expensive.
> /
> How does one pedal in a wet-suit? I mean, it looks like this thing
> is missing pontoons or a snorkel or something for the puddles.
>
> At least the bar-cons and hub brakes give it some redeeming features.
Bar-end shifters are great on a recumbent with beside-seat steering
(BSS) - one can shift AND brake without changing hand position, without
the need for expensive, less reliable brifters.
Braking on a tadpole trike is much stronger than can be achieved on a
normal single upright bicycle, which is limited to somewhere between
0.6g and 0.7g before overturning occurs.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 13:54:01
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
:: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
::::
::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
::: angle.
:::
:: ...
:::
::: I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
::: low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder
::: to ride. Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike -
::: made for going fast.
::
:: Definitely.
::
::: How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
::
::
:: Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
::
:: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
::
:: The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
:: info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
:: owner is deceased.
::
Hard for me to tell from looking, but it just looks uncomfortable. The seat
looks like cloth hung loosely over metal at two ends. perhaps it's not
that, though. However, it doesn't appear to be as low as I thought it woud
be. With that big 700c (is that 700c?) wheel back there. But I can't
really tell how one is positioned in that thing. there a lot of bending
metal bits there too. Once you're in it and riding, how does it feel?
:::
:::
::: So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very
::: low trike) in the last 25 years?
::: Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been
::: passed by some that just seem to fly.....
::
:: I think the last time I did a fairly extended test ride was about
:: five (?) years ago. I was in Albuquerque for a conference. There
:: is (or was) a shop there that specialized in recumbents. They let
:: me take about three different models out and ride them around the
:: city. At this point, I don't remember the details of those bikes,
:: except that they were all new (i.e. none were archaic designs), and
:: they were different from each other.
::
:: And it's not that they were bad rides, IIRC. It's just that I prefer
:: an upright bike.
I prefer that sometimes, but the comfort of a 'bent on long rides is hard to
beat!
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 07:42:16
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 1:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> I'll type slowly so you can follow along.
>
> First, it's customary and appropriate to quote /and attribute/ that to which
> one replies. Thus, my request of Mike to identify who wrote what is
> perfectly reasonable. (When you add in things like kill-files, it makes it
> even more understandable that your vaunted "tree display" doesn't always
> provide all relevant information.)
I don't know about kill-files, but I do know that some moderated NGs
even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
googlegroups archives.
In this particular case, I think it was clear enough that we are
speaking about the utility of helmets in general, and being old
participants in the debate, I don't see why quoting was necessary.
> Sesond, it's dishonest to delete "inconvenient" material to hide context and
> especially content. In this little thread, Tom made a little crack about
> helmets preventing traumatic brain injury and death. Then in a follow-up,
> he DELETED his own remark and only commented on the /death/ aspect, leading
> someone reading only that post to think that I or someone else had claimed
> that lids prevent fatalities when in fact no one had done any such thing.
>
> I realize that you're incapable of being honest or even analytical enough to
> admit or see that this is true, but there you go.
Wow, you're one ornery toad! =)
It doesn't sound so "analytical" to me as "anal" (specifically, anal-
retentive). Quite besides the point of the discussion...I mean, I can
allow that someone equally anal-retentive -- okay, anal-y-tical --
might make the assumption you fear, but such a moron really wasn't
paying attention anyway...who walks into the middle of a conversation
without checking the archives for a quick self-briefing, anyway?
I seriously doubt even a quarter of casual perusers of usenet would
mistake Tom's remark for yours. In any case, you seem to have made
that the point of contention, like someone nit-picking typos, than the
original topic about helmets. It's quite a digression.
> HTH (BKIW)
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 03:13:45
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193755336.672435.305180@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 1:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll type slowly so you can follow along.
>>
>> First, it's customary and appropriate to quote /and attribute/ that to
>> which
>> one replies. Thus, my request of Mike to identify who wrote what is
>> perfectly reasonable. (When you add in things like kill-files, it makes
>> it
>> even more understandable that your vaunted "tree display" doesn't always
>> provide all relevant information.)
>
> I don't know about kill-files, but I do know that some moderated NGs
> even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
> googlegroups archives.
No one but a tedious moron like you would bother with any of that nonsense.
After all, it is not as if anyone is saying anything worth looking up.
> In this particular case, I think it was clear enough that we are
> speaking about the utility of helmets in general, and being old
> participants in the debate, I don't see why quoting was necessary.
It is ALWAYS necessary because Usenet is not about old participants having a
chat with one another. What is written to Usenet is there for all the world
to read. It is just elementary respect to keep this fact permanently in mind
when posting a message. Like all the rest of the morons in this world, you
confuse Usenet with email and instant messaging.
>> Sesond, it's dishonest to delete "inconvenient" material to hide context
>> and
>> especially content. In this little thread, Tom made a little crack about
>> helmets preventing traumatic brain injury and death. Then in a
>> follow-up,
>> he DELETED his own remark and only commented on the /death/ aspect,
>> leading
>> someone reading only that post to think that I or someone else had
>> claimed
>> that lids prevent fatalities when in fact no one had done any such thing.
>>
>> I realize that you're incapable of being honest or even analytical enough
>> to
>> admit or see that this is true, but there you go.
>
> Wow, you're one ornery toad! =)
P at W is the former NYC XYZ (or some such idiotic name) who was forever
violating all the canons of proper decorum for Usenet. He changes his user
name every few months because he sickens everyone who comes into contact
with him. Hells Bells, if I were a scalawag like him, I would not use my
real name either.
> It doesn't sound so "analytical" to me as "anal" (specifically, anal-
> retentive). Quite besides the point of the discussion...I mean, I can
> allow that someone equally anal-retentive -- okay, anal-y-tical --
> might make the assumption you fear, but such a moron really wasn't
> paying attention anyway...who walks into the middle of a conversation
> without checking the archives for a quick self-briefing, anyway?
Everyone does precisely that! Try to get a clue about how Usenet works why
don't you?
I can assure you that only an ass like you (and Tom Sherman and Jim
McNamara) would ever be dumb enough to go back to a previous message. That
is already spilt milk. Those of us with brains like Ed Dolan the Great would
not be caught dead ever looking up ANYTHING on Usenet. You are probably just
stupid enough to look up things in Wikepedia too.
> I seriously doubt even a quarter of casual perusers of usenet would
> mistake Tom's remark for yours. In any case, you seem to have made
> that the point of contention, like someone nit-picking typos, than the
> original topic about helmets. It's quite a digression.
Bill is quite correct as always. Either get it right or get lost!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 08:30:20
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
> ... I do know that some moderated NGs
> even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
> googlegroups archives.
Citation?
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:54:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> ... I do know that some moderated NGs
>> even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
>> googlegroups archives.
>
> Citation?
See
<http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/images/Cessna%20Citation%20Photos/aircraft_cessna_update_clip_image002.jpg >.
For the more budget minded:
<http://www.geocities.com/citation_x11/car1.jpg >. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:38:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Ridiculous, even for you.
Bill "SEE???" S.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:43:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ridiculous, even for you.
"What are you talking about?" - Michael Press
Ever hear of context, Mr. Sornson?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:47:44
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
But...but...PAW said quoting ain't necessary!!!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:47:04
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ridiculous, even for you.
>
> "What are you talking about?" - Michael Press
>
> Ever hear of context, Mr. Sornson?
For the love of GOD, man, do try to keep up. This all started because
certain posters (ahem) over-snip and don't attribute. IOW, THAT WAS THE
ENTIRE POINT.
HTH... (Sigh.)
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 17:38:36
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 3:20 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
> > original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
> > his normal bike.
>
> > The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
> > basement.
>
> I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
> chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
> (lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one")...or really
> not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
> would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
> seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
> how often does that happen with regular bikes?
The original owner was absolutely not the kind of guy to worry about
being "the only one." In fact, I think he enjoyed the attention. And
as far as "committed to cycling," we're talking about a very
experienced long-distance tourist. For example, he rode the entire Al-
Can highway to Alaska, solo.
> > The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>
> Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
> to have a free trike! :)
Nice try! There are two other worthy causes in line ahead of you,
though.
> > My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
> > For all of us, it failed the test.
>
> These other people cycle a lot I take it?
Yes. My wife and I (and our daughter) have toured extensively,
including a self-contained, self-led coast to coast. One of the
friends is our club's mileage leader. The other has done at least one
double century, and does a lot of utility riding as well.
> > The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
> > turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
> > road)
>
> Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
Well, your centuries are different from mine. I do like to stop (or
go back) to smell the flowers, observe a soaring hawk, help with a
repair, etc etc.
> And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
> 'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around.
Yes, but on this trike, you absolutely could not!
> Those
> who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
> distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
> though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?
There's nothing at all wrong with it, if that's what you like. My
point isn't that nobody would ever like this trike. My point is that
nobody who's ridden it liked it enough to want to keep riding it.
Different strokes and all that, yes?
>
> > and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
> > exercise.
>
> That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
> noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever.
And it probably depends on the trike! With this one, your butt is
about 6" off the ground, and your feet are much higher. You are
_very_ reclined. That's why I describe it as a low-racer - although
it predates that term.
> But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
> height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.
Sorry, but it's not even close. This thing requires a sort of extreme
abdominal "crunch," while searching for something to hold onto. When
my wife stalled at that intersection, it took her quite a while to
wiggle out of it. That was an embarrassment for her.
> > The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
> > low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
> > it inconvenient on MUPs.
>
> the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
> your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
I have ridden quite a few recumbents. (More on that later.) I've
ridden this trike. I'm speaking from my experience. I'd not be
willing to take this out in the kind of heavy traffic I negotiate on
my other bikes.
When I ride, I want to be able to see what's happening around me.
With this, I'd be literally looking at adjacent hubcaps. And I can't
imagine I'd be conspicuous to, say, oncoming left-turn motorists.
> > And of course, you'd better have a pickup
> > truck to take it anywhere.
>
> Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk,...
Are we talking about "some trikes," or "most trikes," or "this
trike?"
> I have
> a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
> way.
My bikes almost always ride inside my hatchback, if I need to haul
them. But I'm sure none of my three bike racks could haul this
trike.
>
> > It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
> > from what I can tell.
>
> Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
> prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me.
What an odd conclusion! I'm describing my personal experiences with
this machine, and the experiences of good friends and family. We all
agreed that the trike isn't worth riding much. Is there _no_
possibility that we are correct??
> > So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>
> I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
> humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
> These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
> though, I expect more from you! :)
Again, you need to question who is judging from experience and who is
judging based on pre-conceived notions. Examine your conscience!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let me tell you a bit more about me and recumbents in general.
I first heard of these things in about 1973, in an article in a
paperback book, _The Best of Bicycling_. I was immediately
fascinated. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I was very interested in
vehicle aerodynamics ever since high school. Recumbents seemed like a
great idea - but I wasn't able to afford one.
Still, I read all I could. I joined the IHPVA. I subscribed to Human
Power. I rode my first recumbent, the Avatar 2000, in 1980, I think.
That was the beginning of my doubts, since I found the handling a bit
weird, and realized how ungainly long it was.
A few years later, four of the most active members of our bike club
either bought or built recumbents. I rode with them on many rides,
and tested their bikes. I watched them coast away on the downhills...
and watched everyone pass them on the uphills. And I noted that,
within three or four years, they all retired the recumbents for almost
all rides, preferring their uprights. It was clear the machines
weren't magic carpets.
As an engineer, I still find the designs interesting, partly because
they are still evolving... or, perhaps, looking for a configuration
that really works. I worked for a while on designing my own. I test-
rode many more - long WB, short WB, taller ones, lower ones, different
wheel sizes. I've ridden with - and waited for - friends who still
own them and like them. I've talked to recumbent riders I've met on
country roads. I even had a couple friends who won an IHPVA award
with one, in the Practical Vehicle competition.
I eventually realized that, interested though I am, I don't want one.
For me, a recumbent's advantages aren't likely to offset its
disadvantages. When I splurged on a "different" bike, I got a Bike
Friday instead, and it's already proven far, far more valuable than
any recumbent would have.
And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its recumbent version.
Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.
Recumbent fans need to understand that not everyone likes their choice
of machine - and in my case, at least, it's certainly not prejudice!
If anything, I was prejudiced in favor of them!
It was mostly the riding that changed my mind.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:35:31
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:20 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
>>> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
>>> his normal bike.
>>> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
>>> basement.
>> I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
>> chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
>> (lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one")...or really
>> not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
>> would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
>> seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
>> how often does that happen with regular bikes?
>
> The original owner was absolutely not the kind of guy to worry about
> being "the only one." In fact, I think he enjoyed the attention. And
> as far as "committed to cycling," we're talking about a very
> experienced long-distance tourist. For example, he rode the entire Al-
> Can highway to Alaska, solo.
The very experience upright cyclist is generally the one with the most
ingrained habits and the least able to adapt to something different.
>>> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>> Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
>> to have a free trike! :)
>
> Nice try! There are two other worthy causes in line ahead of you,
> though.
>
>>> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
>>> For all of us, it failed the test.
>> These other people cycle a lot I take it?
>
> Yes. My wife and I (and our daughter) have toured extensively,
> including a self-contained, self-led coast to coast. One of the
> friends is our club's mileage leader. The other has done at least one
> double century, and does a lot of utility riding as well.
>
>>> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
>>> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>>> road)
>> Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
>
> Well, your centuries are different from mine. I do like to stop (or
> go back) to smell the flowers, observe a soaring hawk, help with a
> repair, etc etc.
Most recumbent bicycles AND trikes can do a U-turn in a normal 2-lane
road. Many delta trikes can almost rotate in place.
>> And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
>> 'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around.
>
> Yes, but on this trike, you absolutely could not!
This is not at all typical of current production tadpole trikes.
>> Those
>> who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
>> distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
>> though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?
>
> There's nothing at all wrong with it, if that's what you like. My
> point isn't that nobody would ever like this trike. My point is that
> nobody who's ridden it liked it enough to want to keep riding it.
> Different strokes and all that, yes?
>
>
>>> and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
>>> exercise.
>> That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
>> noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever.
>
> And it probably depends on the trike! With this one, your butt is
> about 6" off the ground, and your feet are much higher. You are
> _very_ reclined. That's why I describe it as a low-racer - although
> it predates that term.
Very reclined is having the seat back at 25° or less from the
horizontal. A high bottom bracket is one that is more than 25 cm above
the seat height.
>> But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
>> height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.
>
> Sorry, but it's not even close. This thing requires a sort of extreme
> abdominal "crunch," while searching for something to hold onto. When
> my wife stalled at that intersection, it took her quite a while to
> wiggle out of it. That was an embarrassment for her.
Proper mounting/dismounting technique can be learned.
>>> The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
>>> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
>>> it inconvenient on MUPs.
>> the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
>> your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
>
> I have ridden quite a few recumbents. (More on that later.) I've
> ridden this trike. I'm speaking from my experience. I'd not be
> willing to take this out in the kind of heavy traffic I negotiate on
> my other bikes.
>
> When I ride, I want to be able to see what's happening around me.
> With this, I'd be literally looking at adjacent hubcaps. And I can't
> imagine I'd be conspicuous to, say, oncoming left-turn motorists.
I have ridden a lowracer (as have several others) in urban Chicago
traffic without problems.
>>> And of course, you'd better have a pickup
>>> truck to take it anywhere.
>> Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk,...
>
> Are we talking about "some trikes," or "most trikes," or "this
> trike?"
Why are you using what appears to be a one-off custom as representative
of the category?
>> I have
>> a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
>> way.
>
> My bikes almost always ride inside my hatchback, if I need to haul
> them. But I'm sure none of my three bike racks could haul this
> trike.
Most production tadpole trikes will fit inside a subcompact hatchback
with the rear seat folded down.
>>> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
>>> from what I can tell.
>> Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
>> prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me.
>
> What an odd conclusion! I'm describing my personal experiences with
> this machine, and the experiences of good friends and family. We all
> agreed that the trike isn't worth riding much. Is there _no_
> possibility that we are correct??
Greater emphasis should have been made in the original post by Frank
that this trike was not a current production trike (or similar), but an
unidentified low volume production (or unique) trike.
>>> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>> I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
>> humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
>> These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
>> though, I expect more from you! :)
>
> Again, you need to question who is judging from experience and who is
> judging based on pre-conceived notions. Examine your conscience!
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Let me tell you a bit more about me and recumbents in general.
>
> I first heard of these things in about 1973, in an article in a
> paperback book, _The Best of Bicycling_. I was immediately
> fascinated. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I was very interested in
> vehicle aerodynamics ever since high school. Recumbents seemed like a
> great idea - but I wasn't able to afford one.
>
> Still, I read all I could. I joined the IHPVA. I subscribed to Human
> Power. I rode my first recumbent, the Avatar 2000, in 1980, I think.
> That was the beginning of my doubts, since I found the handling a bit
> weird, and realized how ungainly long it was.
>
> A few years later, four of the most active members of our bike club
> either bought or built recumbents. I rode with them on many rides,
> and tested their bikes. I watched them coast away on the downhills...
> and watched everyone pass them on the uphills. And I noted that,
> within three or four years, they all retired the recumbents for almost
> all rides, preferring their uprights. It was clear the machines
> weren't magic carpets.
Judging recumbents by what was available in the early 1980's is like
judging automobiles by the Ford Model A.
> As an engineer, I still find the designs interesting, partly because
> they are still evolving... or, perhaps, looking for a configuration
> that really works. I worked for a while on designing my own. I test-
> rode many more - long WB, short WB, taller ones, lower ones, different
> wheel sizes. I've ridden with - and waited for - friends who still
> own them and like them. I've talked to recumbent riders I've met on
> country roads. I even had a couple friends who won an IHPVA award
> with one, in the Practical Vehicle competition.
>
> I eventually realized that, interested though I am, I don't want one.
> For me, a recumbent's advantages aren't likely to offset its
> disadvantages. When I splurged on a "different" bike, I got a Bike
> Friday instead, and it's already proven far, far more valuable than
> any recumbent would have.
>
> And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its recumbent version.
> Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.
The Trek was an odd-ball design, that lost its champion within the
company prior to going into production. Almost no one on the Trek
marketing staff or individual Trek dealers (Mike J. excepted?) wanted
anything to do with it.
The Cannondale was not a bad design, but was priced about one-third more
than the comparable HP Velotechnik Spirit, so it was not competitive in
the market. I doubt than many Cannondale dealers wanted to or knew how
to sell it either.
> Recumbent fans need to understand that not everyone likes their choice
> of machine - and in my case, at least, it's certainly not prejudice!
> If anything, I was prejudiced in favor of them!
>
> It was mostly the riding that changed my mind.
Upright riders need to consider that they are a self-selected group of
people that do not have comfort problems with the upright design, and
there is an under served market that could be filled by crank-forward
uprights and recumbents that would get more cyclists on the road. Is
more cyclists a bad thing, even if the are riding funny bikes?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 22:36:19
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote
> On Oct 29, 3:20 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
>> > original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
>> > his normal bike.
>>
>> > The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
>> > basement.
>>
>> I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
>> chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
>> (lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one")...or really
>> not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that
>> someone
>> would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
>> seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
>> how often does that happen with regular bikes?
>
> The original owner was absolutely not the kind of guy to worry about
> being "the only one." In fact, I think he enjoyed the attention. And
> as far as "committed to cycling," we're talking about a very
> experienced long-distance tourist. For example, he rode the entire Al-
> Can highway to Alaska, solo.
>
>> > The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>>
>> Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd
>> love
>> to have a free trike! :)
>
> Nice try! There are two other worthy causes in line ahead of you,
> though.
>
>> > My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
>> > For all of us, it failed the test.
>>
>> These other people cycle a lot I take it?
>
> Yes. My wife and I (and our daughter) have toured extensively,
> including a self-contained, self-led coast to coast. One of the
> friends is our club's mileage leader. The other has done at least one
> double century, and does a lot of utility riding as well.
>
>> > The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
>> > turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>> > road)
>>
>> Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a
>> U-turn.
>
> Well, your centuries are different from mine. I do like to stop (or
> go back) to smell the flowers, observe a soaring hawk, help with a
> repair, etc etc.
>
>> And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
>> 'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around.
>
> Yes, but on this trike, you absolutely could not!
Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain type of
trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat angle.
>
>> Those
>> who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
>> distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
>> though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?
>
> There's nothing at all wrong with it, if that's what you like. My
> point isn't that nobody would ever like this trike. My point is that
> nobody who's ridden it liked it enough to want to keep riding it.
> Different strokes and all that, yes?
Well, I do see your point. Just like those low-racer recumbent bikes aren't
for me.
>
>
>>
>> > and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
>> > exercise.
>>
>> That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two
>> total
>> noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever.
>
> And it probably depends on the trike! With this one, your butt is
> about 6" off the ground, and your feet are much higher. You are
> _very_ reclined. That's why I describe it as a low-racer - although
> it predates that term.
I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder to ride.
Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike - made for going
fast. How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
>
>> But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
>> height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.
>
> Sorry, but it's not even close. This thing requires a sort of extreme
> abdominal "crunch," while searching for something to hold onto. When
> my wife stalled at that intersection, it took her quite a while to
> wiggle out of it. That was an embarrassment for her.
>
Ok...I get that. The shape (degree of incline) of the trike itself could be
contributing to the issue.
>> > The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
>> > low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
>> > it inconvenient on MUPs.
>>
>> the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really
>> just
>> your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
>
> I have ridden quite a few recumbents. (More on that later.) I've
> ridden this trike. I'm speaking from my experience. I'd not be
> willing to take this out in the kind of heavy traffic I negotiate on
> my other bikes.
Yeah, I can see that...especially given your other comments.
>
> When I ride, I want to be able to see what's happening around me.
> With this, I'd be literally looking at adjacent hubcaps. And I can't
> imagine I'd be conspicuous to, say, oncoming left-turn motorists.
It sounds as if it lower than a low-racer recumbent.
>
>> > And of course, you'd better have a pickup
>> > truck to take it anywhere.
>>
>> Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk,...
>
> Are we talking about "some trikes," or "most trikes," or "this
> trike?"
>
I was talking about trikes in general...you're talking about "that trike".
:)
>> I have
>> a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any
>> other
>> way.
>
> My bikes almost always ride inside my hatchback, if I need to haul
> them. But I'm sure none of my three bike racks could haul this
> trike.
>
>>
>> > It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
>> > from what I can tell.
>>
>> Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
>> prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me.
>
> What an odd conclusion! I'm describing my personal experiences with
> this machine, and the experiences of good friends and family. We all
> agreed that the trike isn't worth riding much. Is there _no_
> possibility that we are correct??
>
No, I think you very well may be correct. But I didn't get from your
comments that this trike was a very low trike. I thought you were talking
about trikes - many of which are naturally low - and low-racer recumbents,
as opposed to a low-racer configuration of trike.
>> > So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>>
>> I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
>> humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived
>> notions.
>> These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
>> though, I expect more from you! :)
>
> Again, you need to question who is judging from experience and who is
> judging based on pre-conceived notions. Examine your conscience!
:)
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Let me tell you a bit more about me and recumbents in general.
>
> I first heard of these things in about 1973, in an article in a
> paperback book, _The Best of Bicycling_. I was immediately
> fascinated. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I was very interested in
> vehicle aerodynamics ever since high school. Recumbents seemed like a
> great idea - but I wasn't able to afford one.
>
> Still, I read all I could. I joined the IHPVA. I subscribed to Human
> Power. I rode my first recumbent, the Avatar 2000, in 1980, I think.
> That was the beginning of my doubts, since I found the handling a bit
> weird, and realized how ungainly long it was.
>
> A few years later, four of the most active members of our bike club
> either bought or built recumbents. I rode with them on many rides,
> and tested their bikes. I watched them coast away on the downhills...
> and watched everyone pass them on the uphills. And I noted that,
> within three or four years, they all retired the recumbents for almost
> all rides, preferring their uprights. It was clear the machines
> weren't magic carpets.
>
> As an engineer, I still find the designs interesting, partly because
> they are still evolving... or, perhaps, looking for a configuration
> that really works. I worked for a while on designing my own. I test-
> rode many more - long WB, short WB, taller ones, lower ones, different
> wheel sizes. I've ridden with - and waited for - friends who still
> own them and like them. I've talked to recumbent riders I've met on
> country roads. I even had a couple friends who won an IHPVA award
> with one, in the Practical Vehicle competition.
>
> I eventually realized that, interested though I am, I don't want one.
> For me, a recumbent's advantages aren't likely to offset its
> disadvantages. When I splurged on a "different" bike, I got a Bike
> Friday instead, and it's already proven far, far more valuable than
> any recumbent would have.
>
> And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its recumbent version.
> Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.
>
> Recumbent fans need to understand that not everyone likes their choice
> of machine - and in my case, at least, it's certainly not prejudice!
> If anything, I was prejudiced in favor of them!
>
> It was mostly the riding that changed my mind.
>
So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very low trike)
in the last 25 years?
Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been passed by
some that just seem to fly.....
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 21:25:25
From: DennisTheBald
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
> >>...'bent bikes are already safe enough.
> > And so are upright bikes.
> Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!
I'm thinking that safety is probably not the thought that is foremost
in the mind of one who is riding under the gates at a railroad
crossing.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:11:46
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Dennis The Bald wrote:
>>>> ...'bent bikes are already safe enough.
>>> And so are upright bikes.
>> Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!
>
> I'm thinking that safety is probably not the thought that is foremost
> in the mind of one who is riding under the gates at a railroad
> crossing.
It is fun to cross after the train goes by, while everyone else is
waiting for the gate to rise.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:00:05
From: Brian Broderick
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >> ...except by many of those who've used it?
>
> >> Bill "sentence finisher" S.
>
> > Otherwise known as a placebo effect??
>
> POTM!
>
> The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
> funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
> over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
> completely!
>
> Good stuff... BS
As to why people fall down:
One fine afternoon, I was riding along the right side of the road on
the Gettysburg College campus, with the curb on the right. There's a
steep incline for about 10 seconds, and I stood up in the pedals so I
could just power up through it. Suddenly, a girl in the French class
I was avoiding walked out of a classroom, and waved at me.
Unthinkingly, I took my hand off the bars, to wave (being the suave,
debonair gentleman I am). Sadly, when standing in the pedals, a lot
of your force is resisted by your arms on the bars. With one hand
off, I imbalanced myself, swinging the bike directly into the curb,
and myself over the bars. Que trauma.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 18:47:51
From: DennisTheBald
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 7:10 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net > wrote:
> The reason people fall is because being on only 2 wheels is inherently
> unstable.
So, if you had wheels strapped on your feet you would tip over too?
You must be dumber than a sk8er, or at least clutzier. Either way,
you're unstable and should be committed.
http://www.bikeroute.com/BentImagesFolder/BlogPhotos/UnwheeldyHarvestLg.jpg
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 02:29:16
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"DennisTheBald" <DennisTheBald@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193683671.036855.36310@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:10 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> The reason people fall is because being on only 2 wheels is inherently
>> unstable.
>
> So, if you had wheels strapped on your feet you would tip over too?
> You must be dumber than a sk8er, or at least clutzier. Either way,
> you're unstable and should be committed.
[...]
Wow, I real genuine idiot for sure!
Were not talking about tipping over, were talking about falling down. Big
difference, although Tom Sherman clearly does not know the difference.
Try to do a track stand on a 2 wheeler for more than a few seconds. On the
other hand, I can do a track stand on my 3 wheeler all day and all night -
if my confounded bladder would let me.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 19:41:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Try to do a track stand on a 2 wheeler for more than a few seconds. On the
> other hand, I can do a track stand on my 3 wheeler all day and all night -
> if my confounded bladder would let me.
Here is the solution for the bladder capacity problem:
<http://www.stadiumpal.com/ >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 04:17:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:fgb7c5$f93$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> Try to do a track stand on a 2 wheeler for more than a few seconds. On
>> the other hand, I can do a track stand on my 3 wheeler all day and all
>> night - if my confounded bladder would let me.
>
> Here is the solution for the bladder capacity problem:
> <http://www.stadiumpal.com/>.
I am definitely going to investigate this Stadium Pal. Anyone on these
groups ever used it?
Most men over the age of 55 develop an enlarged prostate which impacts your
bladder function. I now have to take a leak about every hour or so because
of it. This severely limits what you can do in life.
Thanks Tom for the information. I guess it pays to know you after all.
Best Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 11:45:19
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 29, 2:38 pm, DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> They are shills for the auto/oil complex... they are attempting to
> create the impression that bicycling is inherently dangerous. It's a
> capitalist plot designed to hide the morbidly dangerous nature of
> their products through misdirection and out and out lies.
LOL!! Guerilla marketing for Exxon!
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 18:38:16
From: DennisTheBald
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 1:12 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
They are shills for the auto/oil complex... they are attempting to
create the impression that bicycling is inherently dangerous. It's a
capitalist plot designed to hide the morbidly dangerous nature of
their products through misdirection and out and out lies.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:26:09
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 28, 12:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> More details - what exactly is it?
Well, maybe since we're talking "general characteristics" here, make
and model isn't so critical....
> Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
> trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
> to make drivers give one more room when passing.
That's if they see them! On my 'bent, I deliberately take up another
foot of space in order to try to better ensure that people have more
of a chance of noticing me. I won't even imagine what strategies
might be involved with a trike!
> I have never found this to be an issue.
They certainly have different "road physics" and likely require more
"finessing."
> Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
> place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.
>
> Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.
With bikes, getting on means balance more than anything else. With a
trike, I think it's having to stoop so low at that angle, and allow
yourself to fall back. I don't think it would be a big deal for me,
though I can imagine it being a bit more of a fuss for others.
> Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
> the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?
MUP?
> Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).
Sucks when a car is a necessary accessory to the trike, though!
> Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.
I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
given what very little I think I might know about them.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 18:55:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> More details - what exactly is it?
>
> Well, maybe since we're talking "general characteristics" here, make
> and model isn't so critical....
>
>> Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
>> trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
>> to make drivers give one more room when passing.
>
> That's if they see them! On my 'bent, I deliberately take up another
> foot of space in order to try to better ensure that people have more
> of a chance of noticing me. I won't even imagine what strategies
> might be involved with a trike!
Build an symmetric airfoil shaped spar out of light composite, mount
LEDs to the trailing edge, and mount it vertically on the trike if you
are worried. This arrangement will have much less drag than a round flag
pole and waving flag.
>> I have never found this to be an issue.
>
> They certainly have different "road physics" and likely require more
> "finessing."
>
>> Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
>> place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.
>>
>> Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.
>
> With bikes, getting on means balance more than anything else. With a
> trike, I think it's having to stoop so low at that angle, and allow
> yourself to fall back. I don't think it would be a big deal for me,
> though I can imagine it being a bit more of a fuss for others.
Those who have problems getting on a trike may also have problems with a
DF upright. They may need a step-through or crank-forward upright or a
delta trike with a relatively high seat.
>> Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
>> the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?
>
> MUP?
Multi-use path. The thing occupied by pedestrians, dog walkers, inline
skaters and the occasional cyclist.
>> Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).
>
> Sucks when a car is a necessary accessory to the trike, though!
>
>> Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.
>
> I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
> given what very little I think I might know about them.
We need more attitudes like this.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 18:02:16
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:55:08 -0500, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>> I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
>> given what very little I think I might know about them.
>
>We need more attitudes like this.
I've mixed feeling about bent trikes.
I dread the day I may be confined to one but am nevertheless thankful
they exist in case that day does dawn.
That it's the only configuration available for those who must crank
with their arms increases their worth, IMO.
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:09:36
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:55:08 -0500, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
>>> given what very little I think I might know about them.
>> We need more attitudes like this.
>
> I've mixed feeling about bent trikes.
>
> I dread the day I may be confined to one but am nevertheless thankful
> they exist in case that day does dawn.
Come on, trikes are not that bad! However, the recumbent seat would not
work well with the dinosaur suit.
> That it's the only configuration available for those who must crank
> with their arms increases their worth, IMO.
Not so. See <http://www.mobilityeng.com/ > and click on "HandBike".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 21:49:21
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:09:36 -0500, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>> I dread the day I may be confined to one but am nevertheless thankful
>> they exist in case that day does dawn.
>
>Come on, trikes are not that bad! However, the recumbent seat would not
>work well with the dinosaur suit.
>
You're right, I regard them more as sexy wheelchairs but they do look
faster and more stable than an upright trike.
>> That it's the only configuration available for those who must crank
>> with their arms increases their worth, IMO.
>
>Not so. See <http://www.mobilityeng.com/> and click on "HandBike".
OMG.
Okay, let's change that to the _best_ configuration available for
most people who must hand crank.
<http://www.varnahandcycles.com/handcycles/handcycle.htm >
Marc Herremans, 2007 Crocodile Trophy race:
<http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/oct07/croctrophy07/croctrophy077/DSC_0027.jpg >
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:01:18
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 28, 12:51 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
> his normal bike.
>
> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
> basement.
>
> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>
> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
> For all of us, it failed the test.
>
> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
> road) and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
> exercise. The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
> it inconvenient on MUPs. And of course, you'd better have a pickup
> truck to take it anywhere.
>
> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
> from what I can tell.
>
> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Yes, it seems that all the problems someone would have with a 'bent
are much more pronounced with a trike!
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 09:58:33
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 5:10 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com > wrote:
>
>
> I think it is something you just have to experience. The fun quotient is
> enormous.
You mean there's a different kind of 'bent-smile with trikes???
They're so low on the ground, I dunno...definitely not for urban
environs, which my SMGTe handles quite well 99% of the time.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 12:40:15
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193677113.675118.123560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 5:10 pm, "gotbent" <gotb...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it is something you just have to experience. The fun quotient is
>> enormous.
>
>
> You mean there's a different kind of 'bent-smile with trikes???
>
> They're so low on the ground, I dunno...definitely not for urban
> environs, which my SMGTe handles quite well 99% of the time.
>
Too low to the ground? I've had people in gigantic landbarges stopped next
to me at a traffic light and shout out of their window at me that I was too
low to see. I ask them who they're talking to. "You", they answer. I tell
them that either they're crazy for talking to something invisible, or I'm
not invisible after all. I don't think most of them get it.
I know a fellow that used to ride a NoCom in Chicago, on the streets! I know
a another fellow that rode a Bacchetta Strada in Chicago, too. He got hit by
a car, as high and visible as he was.
I own your bike's cousin, the Speedmachine. She can be a trecherous bitch at
times. Mostly a quick and comfortable ride, but let your attention waver for
a moment and you'll find yourself dumped, unceremoniuosly, out on your ass.
I admit to being a member of the clan klutz and I don't chew gum and walk
simultaneously and remaining in control on two wheels is not totally
intuitive for me. I admit to hammering through turns more consertvatively
than excellent bike handlers, but still, I go through the twisties a lot
faster than the average schmo I pass on the bike trail.
The trike takes the balance thing right out of the equation. On the trike I
pedal like mad and all I need to do is pay attention to what's around me. I
ride with a friend on Wednesday nights, usually a few blocks away from his
house in the land of garage-mahals and green lawns and smooth low traffic
streets. We do five mile circuitous loops. The first time, a few weeks ago,
when we did the ride with lights I noticed that my cheeks hurt. The ride was
so much fun that I was unconsciously grinning in the dark.
I'm not a bent newbe either. I bought my first bent in '99. I still have a
SM and an Earthcycles Sunset and I bought a Trice in February and I ride
about 2000-3000 miles a year.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 09:48:10
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> POTM!
>
> The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
> funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
> over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
> completely!
>
> Good stuff... BS
What??
We're talking about helmets, irregardless of rider experience. Do you
mean to say that inexperienced riders benefit differently somehow?
That's another, though related, conversation.
There's no over-snipping; just pay attention. Don't you have your
newsreader set to a "tree" view?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:09:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> POTM!
>>
>> The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is
>> quite funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced
>> riders falling over suddenly and without warning; then you take away
>> the /content/ completely!
>>
>> Good stuff... BS
>
>
> What??
I'm not surprised you've lost the meaning -- YOU DELETED IT YET AGAIN! LOL
> We're talking about helmets, irregardless
Bzzt. No such word, brainiac. LOL
> ... of rider experience. Do you
> mean to say that inexperienced riders benefit differently somehow?
> That's another, though related, conversation.
>
> There's no over-snipping; just pay attention. Don't you have your
> newsreader set to a "tree" view?
Moron, you trimmed away the content to make your vital contribution of
"placebo effect" -- which didn't even make sense, but that's another sad
little story. LOL
Buh-bye.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 09:44:02
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:
>
> "Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
> addressing in
> your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
> attributions in
> the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
> frustrating..."
>
> Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
> by Usenet?
>
> Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
LOL!
I suspect he may only be nit-picking here because no one's made a
typo, so he can't nit-pick that to distract attention from his
untenable tenets involving magic bike helmets.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:39:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:
>>
>> "Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
>> addressing in
>> your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
>> attributions in
>> the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
>> frustrating..."
>>
>> Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
>> by Usenet?
>>
>> Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> LOL!
>
> I suspect he may only be nit-picking here because no one's made a
> typo, so he can't nit-pick that to distract attention from his
> untenable tenets involving magic bike helmets.
I'll type slowly so you can follow along.
First, it's customary and appropriate to quote /and attribute/ that to which
one replies. Thus, my request of Mike to identify who wrote what is
perfectly reasonable. (When you add in things like kill-files, it makes it
even more understandable that your vaunted "tree display" doesn't always
provide all relevant information.)
Sesond, it's dishonest to delete "inconvenient" material to hide context and
especially content. In this little thread, Tom made a little crack about
helmets preventing traumatic brain injury and death. Then in a follow-up,
he DELETED his own remark and only commented on the /death/ aspect, leading
someone reading only that post to think that I or someone else had claimed
that lids prevent fatalities when in fact no one had done any such thing.
I realize that you're incapable of being honest or even analytical enough to
admit or see that this is true, but there you go.
HTH (BKIW)
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 02:41:22
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:47261ace$0$26334$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
>>> addressing in
>>> your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
>>> attributions in
>>> the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
>>> frustrating..."
>>>
>>> Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
>>> by Usenet?
>>>
>>> Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> I suspect he may only be nit-picking here because no one's made a
>> typo, so he can't nit-pick that to distract attention from his
>> untenable tenets involving magic bike helmets.
>
> I'll type slowly so you can follow along.
>
> First, it's customary and appropriate to quote /and attribute/ that to
> which one replies. Thus, my request of Mike to identify who wrote what is
> perfectly reasonable. (When you add in things like kill-files, it makes
> it even more understandable that your vaunted "tree display" doesn't
> always provide all relevant information.)
>
> Sesond, it's dishonest to delete "inconvenient" material to hide context
> and especially content. In this little thread, Tom made a little crack
> about helmets preventing traumatic brain injury and death. Then in a
> follow-up, he DELETED his own remark and only commented on the /death/
> aspect, leading someone reading only that post to think that I or someone
> else had claimed that lids prevent fatalities when in fact no one had done
> any such thing.
>
> I realize that you're incapable of being honest or even analytical enough
> to admit or see that this is true, but there you go.
Well said Bill!
Tom Sherman used to be better about posting context, but lately he likes to
edit so as to make himself look good and everyone else look bad. It is a
sign of a deteriorating ego and of a self image gone to hell. I fear he is
getting old before his time.
If in doubt as to how to edit, just include everything. You cannot go far
wrong by doing that. The fact is that there is not one person in a thousand
who knows how to edit sensibly. It takes brains to be able to do that.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:05:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
>> by Usenet?
Frank KNOWS I've plonked him, yet keeps trying to address me. Who's
confused?!? LOL
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 02:33:38
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:472612fe$0$20618$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 12:57 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
>>> by Usenet?
>
> Frank KNOWS I've plonked him, yet keeps trying to address me. Who's
> confused?!? LOL
Frank is an idiot, but still that is no reason to plonk him. Hells Bells, if
I plonked everyone who was an idiot, I would not have anyone to talk to.
The world is full of idiots. Get used to them.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 00:47:39
From: 32GO
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Frank Krygowski wrote:
>Perhaps the [tadpole trike] hanging in my garage isn't
>well designed... but the original owner rode it on only
>a few occasions before giving it up for his normal bike.
>The next owner took only a couple test rides... The guy
>he gave it to passed it on to me. My wife, a couple
>friends, and I each took our turns at test rides. For all
>of us, it failed the test.
I was reminded of a similar incident about 25 years ago,
when someone I knew bent the stays on a Schwinn Varsity to
allow mounting of a BMX cruiser tire, then added a cheap
cruiser fork, wider rims and KMart tires. In short order,
he noted that compared to his road bike the whole concept
of mountain bikes (MTBs) was a hopelessly flawed design,
a dead end side trip in cycle development, a short-lived
passing fad. The rest is history...
The moral of this short tale may be something like: you
get what you pay for, or quality of design and construction
are fairly critical elements for any type of cycle.
>The low-racer configuration [of a tadpole trike?] seems
>good only for "toy" use... you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>road and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme
>yoga exercise... its low visibility seems risky for the
>roads, and the extra width makes it inconvenient on MUPs
>[mysterious unexplained phenonema? Mission to Unreached
>Peoples? Multiple-Use Paths?] And of course, you'd better
>have a pickup truck to take it anywhere. It's interesting
>as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue, from
>what I can tell. So I suppose the whole crew of us are
>lost causes!
Most modern trikes will U-turn within a width of 15' or
less. Mounting and dismounting aren't real challenging
for anyone who has mastered a patio or poolside lounge.
Low visibility is only a valid concern for cross traffic
when surrounded by high profile auto traffic; most autos
overtaking a trike on narrow roads allow a much wider
clearance than they would for bicycles. Extra width is
only an issue for ground tracks - e.g., where a single-
track bike might skim the pavement edge, allowing it to
move an extra foot or so out of the path of an overtaking
vehicle than a typical trike. Two tadpoles travel quite
nicely inside a modern minivan or station wagon, sitting
simply and politely on their wheels, rather than being
piled in on their sides with pedals and chains ruining
carpets, or bars, levers and cables tangling during
loading and unloading. Trikes ride nicely on their own
wheels on top of autos with standard roof racks, or on
special purpose hitch mounted racks.
Among the virtues of a tadpole trike I'd list: optimal
low-speed stability, outstanding comfort, incomparable
braking performance, hill climbing capability for less
athletic riders, lack of susceptibility to headwinds,
and its amazing adaptability for carrying heavy loads
or pulling a trailer. It is almost surely the best
choice for a serious cyclist looking for relief from
back, neck, wrist or 'seat' discomfort, or for those
folks struggling with balance issues. Clicking out of
pedals when stopping on a trike is a casual non-traumatic
event, requiring no sense of timing or coordination. You
can park one anywhere you can ride it, with nothing to
lean on and no klugey kickstands.
However, the outstanding virtue of a tadpole, based on
feedback I've heard from the few hundred folks I've seen
try them, whether they bought one or not, is: sheer,
simple FUN! Basically, I guess I'd have to agree that
anyone who has ridden a quality, modern tadpole but
doesn't get that is - well, pretty much a lost cause.
Tadpoles are obviously and clearly not the ideal choice
for every cyclist. Road bikes are likely to be the
vehicle of choice for folks who like to ride very fast
in tight groups, or to whom sheer speed is the primary
criterion for a ride. MTBs work much better for rough dirt
trails. Probably most importantly, this year at least
still, moderate quality road and mountain bikes are much
less expensive than roughly equivalent tadpole trikes.
Finally... as Tom noted:
>Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The
>reverse case would be rare indeed.
At times I sometimes idly speculate on this interesting
what-if: If things had evolved so that most four-year-olds
graduated directly to modern adult recumbent sports
touring tadpoles rather than two-wheelers, what would be
the typical reaction of someone initially introduced to a
contemporary road bike design when he was forty years old?
Would most enjoy - maybe even survive - their first panic
experience with hard braking?
Regards,
Wayne Leggett
3-2-GO
The Trike Store
Ventura CA
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 18:58:30
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
32GO aka Wayne Leggett wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the [tadpole trike] hanging in my garage isn't
>> well designed... but the original owner rode it on only
>> a few occasions before giving it up for his normal bike.
>> The next owner took only a couple test rides... The guy
>> he gave it to passed it on to me. My wife, a couple
>> friends, and I each took our turns at test rides. For all
>> of us, it failed the test.
>
> I was reminded of a similar incident about 25 years ago,
> when someone I knew bent the stays on a Schwinn Varsity to
> allow mounting of a BMX cruiser tire, then added a cheap
> cruiser fork, wider rims and KMart tires. In short order,
> he noted that compared to his road bike the whole concept
> of mountain bikes (MTBs) was a hopelessly flawed design,
> a dead end side trip in cycle development, a short-lived
> passing fad. The rest is history...
>
> The moral of this short tale may be something like: you
> get what you pay for, or quality of design and construction
> are fairly critical elements for any type of cycle.
>
>> The low-racer configuration [of a tadpole trike?] seems
>> good only for "toy" use... you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>> road and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme
>> yoga exercise... its low visibility seems risky for the
>> roads, and the extra width makes it inconvenient on MUPs
>> [mysterious unexplained phenonema? Mission to Unreached
>> Peoples? Multiple-Use Paths?] And of course, you'd better
>> have a pickup truck to take it anywhere. It's interesting
>> as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue, from
>> what I can tell. So I suppose the whole crew of us are
>> lost causes!
>
> Most modern trikes will U-turn within a width of 15' or
> less. Mounting and dismounting aren't real challenging
> for anyone who has mastered a patio or poolside lounge.
> Low visibility is only a valid concern for cross traffic
> when surrounded by high profile auto traffic; most autos
> overtaking a trike on narrow roads allow a much wider
> clearance than they would for bicycles. Extra width is
> only an issue for ground tracks - e.g., where a single-
> track bike might skim the pavement edge, allowing it to
> move an extra foot or so out of the path of an overtaking
> vehicle than a typical trike. Two tadpoles travel quite
> nicely inside a modern minivan or station wagon, sitting
> simply and politely on their wheels, rather than being
> piled in on their sides with pedals and chains ruining
> carpets, or bars, levers and cables tangling during
> loading and unloading. Trikes ride nicely on their own
> wheels on top of autos with standard roof racks, or on
> special purpose hitch mounted racks.
>
> Among the virtues of a tadpole trike I'd list: optimal
> low-speed stability, outstanding comfort, incomparable
> braking performance, hill climbing capability for less
> athletic riders, lack of susceptibility to headwinds,
> and its amazing adaptability for carrying heavy loads
> or pulling a trailer. It is almost surely the best
> choice for a serious cyclist looking for relief from
> back, neck, wrist or 'seat' discomfort, or for those
> folks struggling with balance issues. Clicking out of
> pedals when stopping on a trike is a casual non-traumatic
> event, requiring no sense of timing or coordination. You
> can park one anywhere you can ride it, with nothing to
> lean on and no klugey kickstands.
>
> However, the outstanding virtue of a tadpole, based on
> feedback I've heard from the few hundred folks I've seen
> try them, whether they bought one or not, is: sheer,
> simple FUN! Basically, I guess I'd have to agree that
> anyone who has ridden a quality, modern tadpole but
> doesn't get that is - well, pretty much a lost cause.
>
> Tadpoles are obviously and clearly not the ideal choice
> for every cyclist. Road bikes are likely to be the
> vehicle of choice for folks who like to ride very fast
> in tight groups, or to whom sheer speed is the primary
> criterion for a ride. MTBs work much better for rough dirt
> trails. Probably most importantly, this year at least
> still, moderate quality road and mountain bikes are much
> less expensive than roughly equivalent tadpole trikes.
>
> Finally... as Tom noted:
>
>> Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The
>> reverse case would be rare indeed.
>
> At times I sometimes idly speculate on this interesting
> what-if: If things had evolved so that most four-year-olds
> graduated directly to modern adult recumbent sports
> touring tadpoles rather than two-wheelers, what would be
> the typical reaction of someone initially introduced to a
> contemporary road bike design when he was forty years old?
> Would most enjoy - maybe even survive - their first panic
> experience with hard braking?
The only thing I would take issue with in the above is cost. A trike
will have a third wheel, longer chain and a complex seat. Even if
produced by the tens of thousands in a Democratic China (Taiwan)
automated factory, a tadpole would cost a couple of hundred dollars more
than a comparable quality upright.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 00:57:04
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 28, 12:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
> >> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
>
> > Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
> > original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
> > his normal bike.
>
> More details - what exactly is it?
We don't know the make. It was apparently a low-production custom
from the mid or late 1980s. The original owner is now deceased.
>
> > The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
> > basement.
>
> > The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>
> > My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
> > For all of us, it failed the test.
>
> > The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.
>
> Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
> trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
> to make drivers give one more room when passing.
Well, none of us was willing to ride it through town traffic. Getting
a bag of groceries was out of the question. And in general, the vast
majority of low-racer types don't seem to go for utility use.
> > The
> > turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
> > road)
>
> I have never found this to be an issue.
It was an issue for my wife. She rode it in our neighborhood, tried
to do a U-turn at a quiet intersection, ended up nosed into the curb
facing downhill, couldn't go forward, couldn't reverse (it has no
reverse gear), and had to struggle mightily to get out of the thing.
And she's quite slim and fit. She vowed never to use the thing again.
> > The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
> > low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
> > it inconvenient on MUPs.
>
> Again, the "seems" risky.
Well, it's not uncommon for riders of conventional bikes to prefer
upright, not drop bars, for city use. If they reject drop bars due to
the 3" drop in eye height, how would they feel with a 48" drop in eye
height?
> As for width, most trikes are no wider than
> the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?
I just measured. My road bike bars are about 16" wide. My mountain
bike bars are 20" wide. The trike's front track looks like 27". (I
didn't take it off the ceiling to get a precise measurement.) It's
significantly wider.
> > And of course, you'd better have a pickup
> > truck to take it anywhere.
>
> Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).
It's possible. I know a guy who carried his upright base fiddle in a
Civic. Can we agree that most cars would have trouble carrying this
machine?
>
> > It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
> > from what I can tell.
>
> > So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>
> Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.
:-) Sorry, dude. I'm describing what the original owner, plus
several of my friends, actually perceived.
I've seen the pro-recumbent preconceptions before - the disbelief that
anyone could try a recumbent and prefer an upright. But I've known
many people who bought them, rode them, then abandoned them. The
original owner of this machine was unique among my acquaintances only
because his was a trike - and the most expensive machine of the
abandoned recumbents.
That doesn't mean they're not fine machines in their own way, and it
doesn't mean that some people won't love them. Recumbent
proselytizers just need to recognize that the machines don't meet most
riders needs - and it's not merely for lack of people trying them!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 04:09:50
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193619424.448829.8780@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> I've seen the pro-recumbent preconceptions before - the disbelief that
> anyone could try a recumbent and prefer an upright. But I've known
> many people who bought them, rode them, then abandoned them. The
> original owner of this machine was unique among my acquaintances only
> because his was a trike - and the most expensive machine of the
> abandoned recumbents.
>
> That doesn't mean they're not fine machines in their own way, and it
> doesn't mean that some people won't love them. Recumbent
> proselytizers just need to recognize that the machines don't meet most
> riders needs - and it's not merely for lack of people trying them!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
The main reason for preferring a recumbent to an upright is the comfort
factor. All other considerations fall by the wayside compared to this one
overwhelming fact. I thought every in the world knew at least this much,
even Frank the Slav!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 20:18:26
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:59 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
>>>> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
>>> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
>>> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
>>> his normal bike.
>> More details - what exactly is it?
>
> We don't know the make. It was apparently a low-production custom
> from the mid or late 1980s. The original owner is now deceased.
Hard to make a judgment on whether this trike is generally
representative of other trikes from that information.
>>> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
>>> basement.
>>> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>>> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
>>> For all of us, it failed the test.
>>> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.
>> Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
>> trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
>> to make drivers give one more room when passing.
>
> Well, none of us was willing to ride it through town traffic. Getting
> a bag of groceries was out of the question. And in general, the vast
> majority of low-racer types don't seem to go for utility use.
My lowracers and trike come with built-in racks that will carry two (2)
standard panniers and a "trunk" bag. They are also capable of pulling a
trailer. I am aware of at least one person that uses a lowracer as a
"market" bike.
That being said, the more performance oriented lowracers are not
practical, but neither are CFRP uprights that lack the clearances for
fenders and rack mounting points.
>>> The
>>> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>>> road)
>> I have never found this to be an issue.
>
> It was an issue for my wife. She rode it in our neighborhood, tried
> to do a U-turn at a quiet intersection, ended up nosed into the curb
> facing downhill, couldn't go forward, couldn't reverse (it has no
> reverse gear), and had to struggle mightily to get out of the thing.
> And she's quite slim and fit. She vowed never to use the thing again.
Reverse can be had by grabbing the front wheels and rotating backwards,
or pushing on the ground with one's feet in a normal tadpole trike. I
have no idea about Frank's mystery trike, however.
>>> The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
>>> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
>>> it inconvenient on MUPs.
>> Again, the "seems" risky.
>
> Well, it's not uncommon for riders of conventional bikes to prefer
> upright, not drop bars, for city use. If they reject drop bars due to
> the 3" drop in eye height, how would they feel with a 48" drop in eye
> height?
I thought it was the inclination of the head that was the issue, not the
minor decrease in head height - this is the first time I have ever heard
the latter being a reason for upright bars on a city bike. One of the
benefits of a recumbent is being able to combine an aerodynamic position
without having one face turned towards the ground.
>> As for width, most trikes are no wider than
>> the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?
>
> I just measured. My road bike bars are about 16" wide. My mountain
> bike bars are 20" wide. The trike's front track looks like 27". (I
> didn't take it off the ceiling to get a precise measurement.) It's
> significantly wider.
Those are rather narrow ATB bars - my Trek 6000 handlebars are about 25
inches wide.
>>> And of course, you'd better have a pickup
>>> truck to take it anywhere.
>> Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).
>
> It's possible. I know a guy who carried his upright base fiddle in a
> Civic. Can we agree that most cars would have trouble carrying this
> machine?
No. A roof rack with the proper channels would work on most vehicles.
>>> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
>>> from what I can tell.
>>> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>> Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.
>
> :-) Sorry, dude. I'm describing what the original owner, plus
> several of my friends, actually perceived.
Again, with a "mystery" trike that has exactly what resemblance to
typical 21st Century trikes?
> I've seen the pro-recumbent preconceptions before - the disbelief that
> anyone could try a recumbent and prefer an upright. But I've known
> many people who bought them, rode them, then abandoned them. The
> original owner of this machine was unique among my acquaintances only
> because his was a trike - and the most expensive machine of the
> abandoned recumbents.
Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The reverse case
would be rare indeed. Which group is more likely to suffer from
misconceptions?
> That doesn't mean they're not fine machines in their own way, and it
> doesn't mean that some people won't love them. Recumbent
> proselytizers just need to recognize that the machines don't meet most
> riders needs - and it's not merely for lack of people trying them!
And upright riders would be best if they left their case as not having
any interest in recumbents, rather that promulgating misconceptions.
In the real world [1], do not comment on the bicycles of others, unless
invited, then everyone can be happy. How hard is that?
[1] As opposed to Usenet.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 00:26:29
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 28, 12:43 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 4:57 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>
> >> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> >> already safe enough.
>
> > And so are upright bikes.
>
> Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!
Hell, I just jump those! ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 16:57:10
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
> funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
> over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
> completely!
And in another thread, our Paris Hilton emulator wrote:
"Mike, could you PLEASE start identifying who the heck you're
addressing in
your posts? How is it that your newsreader deletes all the
attributions in
the first place? It really gets confusing and somewhat
frustrating..."
Bill, do you not realize you're the ONLY person who gets so confused
by Usenet?
Sheesh! The guy needs training wheels to follow a thread!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 16:51:13
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>
> > But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> > already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
> > it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
> > turns, I guess!)...so what?
>
> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.
The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.
The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.
The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road) and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise. The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs. And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.
It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.
So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 15:20:01
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote
> On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> > There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>>
>> > But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
>> > already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
>> > it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
>> > turns, I guess!)...so what?
>>
Significant fun factor and very different riding experience. Going up steep
hills has some advantages too. Pain factor is an issue on long rides
compared to other types of bikes (perhaps I should say the lack of pain).
>> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
>> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
>
> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
> his normal bike.
>
> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
> basement.
>
I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
(lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one")...or really
not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
how often does that happen with regular bikes?
> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
to have a free trike! :)
>
> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
> For all of us, it failed the test.
>
These other people cycle a lot I take it?
> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
> road)
Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around. Those
who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?
> and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
> exercise.
That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever. The
guy was very slender so that didn't surprise me too much. The lady was
shorter, not fat by many means but not very slender either. I was impressed
at how effortless it was for her to get up. She did have to think about it,
though. But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.
> The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
> it inconvenient on MUPs.
the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
IMO, cycling of any kind is inconvenient on MUPs. Trikes would have an
advantage there as they can stop on a dime which is problematic at best on
two wheels of any type. The trikes I have ridden do u-turns on a dime, too,
much better than any other bike I've tried.
> And of course, you'd better have a pickup
> truck to take it anywhere.
>
Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk, and there are racks for them. I have
a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
way.
> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
> from what I can tell.
Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me. I
have an upright, a long-wheel base bent and probably will have a trike soon.
I enjoy all of them for the different experiences they offer. Each one has
it's own set of pros/cons. I know one fellow (not personally, from afar) who
commutes to work on this trike. No flags either. I think this is especially
interesting as he does his in a college town on a college campus, with lots
of students flying around in cars.
>
> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>
I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
though, I expect more from you! :)
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:59:56
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Prisoner at War wrote:
>>>> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>>>> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
>>>> already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
>>>> it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
>>>> turns, I guess!)...so what?
>
> Significant fun factor and very different riding experience. Going up steep
> hills has some advantages too. Pain factor is an issue on long rides
> compared to other types of bikes (perhaps I should say the lack of pain).
I remember at the end of a long, hot, tiring ride being happy to sit
still on my trike, and not get up. Hard to do that on anything else.
>>> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
>>> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
>> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
>> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
>> his normal bike.
>>
>> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
>> basement.
>>
>
> I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
> chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
> (lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one")...or really
> not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
> would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
> seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
> how often does that happen with regular bikes?
Relatively unused upright bicycles do turn up from time to time for sale.
>> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>
> Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
> to have a free trike! :)
Probably a few hundred dollars to ship, unless you want to drive to Ohio
to pick it up. (Been there, done that.)
>> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
>> For all of us, it failed the test.
>>
>
> These other people cycle a lot I take it?
Experienced upright cyclists often have so ingrained habits they do not
want to change to anything different.
>> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
>> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
>> road)
>
> Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
> And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
> 'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around. Those
> who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
> distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
> though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?
On a long-wheelbase, over-seat steering like Roger Zoul's RANS Stratus,
one can use the back of ones knees in combination with the handlebars to
pick the bicycle up and rotate in place.
>> and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
>> exercise.
>
> That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
> noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever. The
> guy was very slender so that didn't surprise me too much. The lady was
> shorter, not fat by many means but not very slender either. I was impressed
> at how effortless it was for her to get up. She did have to think about it,
> though. But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
> height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.
>
>> The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
>> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
>> it inconvenient on MUPs.
>
> the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
> your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
> IMO, cycling of any kind is inconvenient on MUPs. Trikes would have an
> advantage there as they can stop on a dime which is problematic at best on
> two wheels of any type. The trikes I have ridden do u-turns on a dime, too,
> much better than any other bike I've tried.
Rear suspension helps greatly with the potholes, since it is relatively
easy to steer the front wheel around them.
>> And of course, you'd better have a pickup
>> truck to take it anywhere.
>>
>
> Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk, and there are racks for them. I have
> a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
> way.
>
>> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
>> from what I can tell.
>
> Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
> prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me. I
> have an upright, a long-wheel base bent and probably will have a trike soon.
> I enjoy all of them for the different experiences they offer. Each one has
> it's own set of pros/cons. I know one fellow (not personally, from afar) who
> commutes to work on this trike. No flags either. I think this is especially
> interesting as he does his in a college town on a college campus, with lots
> of students flying around in cars.
>
>> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
>>
>
> I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
> humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
> These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
> though, I expect more from you! :)
Agreed. Frank Krygowski aka frkrygow@gmail.com is correct on other
issues such as bicycle foam hats. However, he does need (along with
several others) to fix his user name.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 11:59:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Prisoner at War wrote:
>>> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>>> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
>>> already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
>>> it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
>>> turns, I guess!)...so what?
>> Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
>> either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
>
> Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
> original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
> his normal bike.
More details - what exactly is it?
> The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
> basement.
>
> The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.
>
> My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
> For all of us, it failed the test.
>
> The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use.
Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.
> The
> turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
> road)
I have never found this to be an issue.
> and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
> exercise.
Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.
Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.
> The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
> low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
> it inconvenient on MUPs.
Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?
> And of course, you'd better have a pickup
> truck to take it anywhere.
Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).
> It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
> from what I can tell.
>
> So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!
Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 16:40:11
From:
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 27, 4:57 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>
> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> already safe enough.
And so are upright bikes.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2007 11:43:47
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 27, 4:57 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>>
>> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
>> already safe enough.
>
> And so are upright bikes.
Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 13:57:58
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> ...except by many of those who've used it?
>
> Bill "sentence finisher" S.
Otherwise known as a placebo effect??
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:23:56
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...except by many of those who've used it?
>>
>> Bill "sentence finisher" S.
>
>
> Otherwise known as a placebo effect??
POTM!
The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
completely!
Good stuff... BS
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 16:18:31
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> ...except by many of those who've used it?
>>
>> Bill "sentence finisher" S.
>
>
> Otherwise known as a placebo effect??
>
The life saving properties of foam bicycle hats are a tenet of a certain
faith based community of cyclists.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:25:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...except by many of those who've used it?
>>>
>>> Bill "sentence finisher" S.
>>
>>
>> Otherwise known as a placebo effect??
>>
> The life saving properties of foam bicycle hats are a tenet of a
> certain faith based community of cyclists.
Now you conveniently "forget" the context (which you deleted first) and your
own content (which wasn't JUST "life-saving"). Well done!
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 13:57:28
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
turns, I guess!)...so what?
On Oct 26, 7:38 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> People fall down because they are not riding a trike. :)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 16:17:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>
> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
> it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
> turns, I guess!)...so what?
Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2007 16:10:13
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193518648.249330.305630@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
>
> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
> it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
> turns, I guess!)...so what?
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 7:38 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> People fall down because they are not riding a trike. :)
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
>
>
I think it is something you just have to experience. The fun quotient is
enormous.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:38:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
People fall down because they are not riding a trike. :)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:11:31
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Hehehe...actually, you reminded me of a possible explanation: they
needed to use the restroom!
Did anyone else notice the long-assed line at the *MENS' ROOM* at the
first rest stop??? ROTFLMFAO!! The ladies' room had absolutely NO
LINE!
I guess roles really do reverse after middle-age!!
On Oct 25, 9:57 pm, dale <d...@goldorb.com > wrote:
>
>
> You're leaving out the effect of gravitational perturbations (GPs)..
> These show up unannounced, kinda like wind shear, and lob a wrench
> into an otherwise ordinary day... Like people who carve level notches
> into a perfectly good descent ramp.. The guy in the yellow raincoat
> on Laugh-In was frequently attacked by GPs.. A couple of extra beers
> will attract every GP in the vicinity until you hide in a ditch, the
> lowest point around, clutching the remnants of your dignity. Pretty
> much any time you stop your bike at a light and grin vacantly at a
> scantily clad young female pedestrian, you can count on a GP tossing
> you to the pavement. Most importantly, GPs liberate a guy from any
> direct responsibility for some rather embarrassing events-- sliding
> down all the stairs on shoe leather alone-- being found under a table
> in a bar at closing time-- leaving a perfectly dry canoe while
> fishing. Don't spend too much time wondering why. Just keep 911 on
> speed-dial..
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:09:34
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 10:37 pm, "Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition =AE"
<b...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>
> Maybe something to do with clipless pedals, or their loose pants snagging=
on
> the bike somewhere. Maybe they got up too early. Who knows.
They panicked. That's the most proximate cause.
> Not to launch another helmet debate which I have no interest in, they SHO=
ULD
> require helmets in these rides.
Heck no! It's not only NYC, it's da Bronx, nigga!!!
I noticed that there were even more white people than at a Yankees
game, LOL....
> BU they are just following NYC law, which
> only require children under 13 to use helmets. I did the ride also, a gr=
eat
> ride, but unnecessarily a chaotic start. The cops were confused. The
> marshals were confused. I was glad to have left the start line.
Yes, and according to a sergeant I spoke with, the borough president
Carrion started the ride early. So the ride started early and no one
was told it would be...it probably started early due to all the riders
turning up and still piling on. We started at like ten-thirty and it
wasn't supposed to start until eleven. Yes I know start time is
listed as ten o'clock but apparently the real start time is an hour
later (I don't know, this was my first year).
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:04:25
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 26, 9:22 am, "Brother Oswald" <o...@iwonder.com > wrote:
> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Maybe he suddenly realized how uncool he looked, and the shock destroyed
> > his sense of balance :-)
>
> Now that could be. At the time our unlikely test rider was wearing a
> florescent yellow spandex pro bike racer outfit advertising a telephone or
> some such with goofy sunglasses and helmet that made him look like a alien
> from outer space. It was enough to make Superman laugh. The recumbent gods
> probably smote him down just to end the embarrassment of it all.
You know, this is the kind of thing that used to make me wonder if I
had ESP or something (LOL)...I was watching that girl go by, checking
out how her ass sat on her saddle, and at that point is when she took
a spill! Thing is, she was already like four yards or so ahead of me
(she flew by me as I was remounting after a call-of-nature pit-stop),
and I had just started pedaling and checking her out when she flew off
her bike and rolled across my path very neatly to the side of the
road!
The other case that Sunday was this couple, and I saw it just as the
guy was trying to steady the girl and her fall caused them both to
sink. That was cute, seeing a couple crash together like that, as if
on a tandem, hehe. =)
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:00:11
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 11:56 pm, Mark Shroyer <usenet-m...@markshroyer.com > wrote:
>
>
> I did more or less the same thing myself, a few years back, on the
> University of Florida campus. Except in my case I was on a mountain
> bike, so (1) I didn't have the poor-point-of-view excuse for my
> mistake, and (2) instead of flying into an upright position, I flew
> over the handlebars and smacked my cheek on the pavement.
Oooohh!!!!!
I had a few over-the-handlebars on various uprights, too...luckily,
none of them required a helmet! So that's why I never felt like I
needed a helmet.
> I think I better re-evaluate my position on the relative safety of
> recumbents versus upright bicycles...
I was told that the HP Velotechnik SMGTe was a very bad design where
the slamming of brakes was concerned...but it was so comfy I had to
get one! And then I found out that it's not dangerous at all in that
respect, and that was the only respect in which it would have been
dangerous.
I've even gone downhill very fast in the rain once...it was a good six-
degree gradient hill at least...I pumped the brakes a bit and not
totally slammed them, but I was still "upright" all that time...I
skidded for about five seconds! This was that big hill in Tarrytown,
NY, by that college and convent, if another knows what I'm talking
about...it's a T-intersection, and the coffee shop I would have
crashed into had folks looking out their window at me, LOL....
I ride around NYC and let most everybody try out my 'bent...so far,
there's only been one guy who didn't pick it up within a minute's
time...and everybody instinctively recognizes how safe it is, from a
physics-of-the-road standpoint (decreased vantage is a serious issue
one will need to master with time, however)....
> --
> Mark Shroyerhttp://markshroyer.com/
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 23:25:20
From: ilaboo
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
mistook a white curb as a driveway and came at it at a very acute ange--3 o
am in the morning--the bronx--laughed myself silly when i fell down. also
hit a 10 inch log hidden by grass--also laughed when i crashed into it with
my MTB--
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193425211.685826.221940@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 11:56 pm, Mark Shroyer <usenet-m...@markshroyer.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did more or less the same thing myself, a few years back, on the
>> University of Florida campus. Except in my case I was on a mountain
>> bike, so (1) I didn't have the poor-point-of-view excuse for my
>> mistake, and (2) instead of flying into an upright position, I flew
>> over the handlebars and smacked my cheek on the pavement.
>
> Oooohh!!!!!
>
> I had a few over-the-handlebars on various uprights, too...luckily,
> none of them required a helmet! So that's why I never felt like I
> needed a helmet.
>
>> I think I better re-evaluate my position on the relative safety of
>> recumbents versus upright bicycles...
>
> I was told that the HP Velotechnik SMGTe was a very bad design where
> the slamming of brakes was concerned...but it was so comfy I had to
> get one! And then I found out that it's not dangerous at all in that
> respect, and that was the only respect in which it would have been
> dangerous.
>
> I've even gone downhill very fast in the rain once...it was a good six-
> degree gradient hill at least...I pumped the brakes a bit and not
> totally slammed them, but I was still "upright" all that time...I
> skidded for about five seconds! This was that big hill in Tarrytown,
> NY, by that college and convent, if another knows what I'm talking
> about...it's a T-intersection, and the coffee shop I would have
> crashed into had folks looking out their window at me, LOL....
>
> I ride around NYC and let most everybody try out my 'bent...so far,
> there's only been one guy who didn't pick it up within a minute's
> time...and everybody instinctively recognizes how safe it is, from a
> physics-of-the-road standpoint (decreased vantage is a serious issue
> one will need to master with time, however)....
>
>> --
>> Mark Shroyerhttp://markshroyer.com/
>
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 22:37:15
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193339577.469836.227250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
>
Maybe something to do with clipless pedals, or their loose pants snagging on
the bike somewhere. Maybe they got up too early. Who knows.
Not to launch another helmet debate which I have no interest in, they SHOULD
require helmets in these rides. BU they are just following NYC law, which
only require children under 13 to use helmets. I did the ride also, a great
ride, but unnecessarily a chaotic start. The cops were confused. The
marshals were confused. I was glad to have left the start line.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:49:31
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Bell (Helmet?) south Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® wrote:
> ...
> Not to launch another helmet debate which I have no interest in, they SHOULD
> require helmets in these rides. BU they are just following NYC law, which
> only require children under 13 to use helmets. I did the ride also, a great
> ride, but unnecessarily a chaotic start. The cops were confused. The
> marshals were confused. I was glad to have left the start line.
If you do not want to start a helmet debate, why do you put in a
gratuitous advocation for a device that has never been shown to be
effective in preventing serious head trauma or death?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:23:12
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bell (Helmet?) south Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® wrote:
>> ...
>> Not to launch another helmet debate which I have no interest in,
>> they SHOULD require helmets in these rides. BU they are just
>> following NYC law, which only require children under 13 to use
>> helmets. I did the ride also, a great ride, but unnecessarily a
>> chaotic start. The cops were confused. The marshals were confused.
>> I was glad to have left the start line.
>
> If you do not want to start a helmet debate, why do you put in a
> gratuitous advocation for a device that has never been shown to be
> effective in preventing serious head trauma or death...
...except by many of those who've used it?
Bill "sentence finisher" S.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 18:57:52
From: dale
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>zzzznipppp
> Weird.
You're leaving out the effect of gravitational perturbations (GPs)..
These show up unannounced, kinda like wind shear, and lob a wrench
into an otherwise ordinary day... Like people who carve level notches
into a perfectly good descent ramp.. The guy in the yellow raincoat
on Laugh-In was frequently attacked by GPs.. A couple of extra beers
will attract every GP in the vicinity until you hide in a ditch, the
lowest point around, clutching the remnants of your dignity. Pretty
much any time you stop your bike at a light and grin vacantly at a
scantily clad young female pedestrian, you can count on a GP tossing
you to the pavement. Most importantly, GPs liberate a guy from any
direct responsibility for some rather embarrassing events-- sliding
down all the stairs on shoe leather alone-- being found under a table
in a bar at closing time-- leaving a perfectly dry canoe while
fishing. Don't spend too much time wondering why. Just keep 911 on
speed-dial..
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 20:10:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193339577.469836.227250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
What's the matter - can't keep a single user name? Try your real name
sometime why don't you!
The reason people fall is because being on only 2 wheels is inherently
unstable. If you never want to fall, get a 3 wheeled recumbent. Elementary
my dear Watson!
Mr. Tom Sherman, an engineering and physics jerk, could explain this in
terms that even you could understand, but all he is capable of these days is
pissing me off - so the less we hear from him, the better.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:46:37
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Mr. Ed Dolan the Grate wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1193339577.469836.227250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
>> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>>
>> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
>> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
>> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
>> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>>
>> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
>> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
>> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
>> apparently.
>>
>> Weird.
>
> What's the matter - can't keep a single user name? Try your real name
> sometime why don't you!
>
> The reason people fall is because being on only 2 wheels is inherently
> unstable. If you never want to fall, get a 3 wheeled recumbent. Elementary
> my dear Watson!
Within certain limitations. I saw someone flip a Thebis trike [1] when
trying to turn too sharply. However, the high seat and rear steering of
the (long out of production) Thebis makes it an oddity, even among
recumbents.
Upright trikes are very easy to flip when cornering.
To flip a low seat tadpole trike requires pushing things well beyond
sensible limits.
> Mr. Tom Sherman, an engineering and physics jerk, could explain this in
> terms that even you could understand, but all he is capable of these days is
> pissing me off - so the less we hear from him, the better.
The trick is to miss the ground when you fall.
[1] <http://www.jggrafx.com/thomsstuff/thebis1.jpg >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 13:25:22
From: Prisoner at War
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Oct 25, 4:06 pm, "Brother Oswald" <brot...@oswaldsplace.com > wrote:
>
>
> Don't know. It's a mystery. I saw it happen to a guy riding my recumbent.
> No discernable rider error. No bike malfunction. No adverse road
> conditions. No plausible explanation. I suspect it was caused by something
> out there in the recumbent twilight zone.
>
> Os
The last time I went flying off my bike (without a helmet, of course)
was on my 'bent, on the campus of the College of Staten Island, where
from my height and distance mistook a flight of stairs for a ramp (the
steps were big and wide and from that vantage point looked like a ramp
descent). After the first few steps I put on the break and went
flying out of my Street Machine! But not headlong like on an upright;
I went flying, but always rightside-up, and so landed on my feet
without even having thought about it.
So slamming the breaks on a 'bent doesn't seem dangerous, either! It
was actually fun...I had a good three seconds of air time! If it
weren't for fear of further damaging my bike (it was scratched, of
course), I would have done it again. =)
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:39:41
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Oct 25, 4:06 pm, "Brother Oswald" <brot...@oswaldsplace.com> wrote:
>>
>> Don't know. It's a mystery. I saw it happen to a guy riding my recumbent.
>> No discernable rider error. No bike malfunction. No adverse road
>> conditions. No plausible explanation. I suspect it was caused by something
>> out there in the recumbent twilight zone.
>>
>> Os
>
>
> The last time I went flying off my bike (without a helmet, of course)
> was on my 'bent, on the campus of the College of Staten Island, where
> from my height and distance mistook a flight of stairs for a ramp (the
> steps were big and wide and from that vantage point looked like a ramp
> descent). After the first few steps I put on the break and went
> flying out of my Street Machine! But not headlong like on an upright;
> I went flying, but always rightside-up, and so landed on my feet
> without even having thought about it....
I did this on my RANS Rocket when I hit a patch of sand while riding
along an unpaved trail. No harm, no foul.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 03:56:14
From: Mark Shroyer
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On 2007-10-25, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote:
> The last time I went flying off my bike (without a helmet, of
> course) was on my 'bent, on the campus of the College of Staten
> Island, where from my height and distance mistook a flight of
> stairs for a ramp (the steps were big and wide and from that
> vantage point looked like a ramp descent). After the first few
> steps I put on the break and went flying out of my Street Machine!
> But not headlong like on an upright; I went flying, but always
> rightside-up, and so landed on my feet without even having thought
> about it.
>
> So slamming the breaks on a 'bent doesn't seem dangerous, either!
> It was actually fun...I had a good three seconds of air time! If
> it weren't for fear of further damaging my bike (it was scratched,
> of course), I would have done it again. =)
I did more or less the same thing myself, a few years back, on the
University of Florida campus. Except in my case I was on a mountain
bike, so (1) I didn't have the poor-point-of-view excuse for my
mistake, and (2) instead of flying into an upright position, I flew
over the handlebars and smacked my cheek on the pavement.
I think I better re-evaluate my position on the relative safety of
recumbents versus upright bicycles...
--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2007 15:06:14
From: Brother Oswald
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1193339577.469836.227250@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, when it's a nice flat road, no one's around them, it's sunny,
> dry, no winds...how do people just go plop! in front of you like that?
>
> I saw this three times on Sunday's Tour de Bronx in NYC (great ride;
> free food and water and no helmets required!!!)...they're not going
> fast, they weren't going downhill, no one was around them (I was a
> good four yards behind), and suddenly they fall. Just like that.
>
> I fall out of my bike like once every five years due to trying to ride
> down stairs or something like that. How do these people just fall in
> perfectly good conditions? They weren't newbie riders either,
> apparently.
>
> Weird.
>
Don't know. It's a mystery. I saw it happen to a guy riding my recumbent.
No discernable rider error. No bike malfunction. No adverse road
conditions. No plausible explanation. I suspect it was caused by something
out there in the recumbent twilight zone.
Os
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 13:11:58
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:06:14 -0500, Brother Oswald wrote:
> Don't know. It's a mystery. I saw it happen to a guy riding my recumbent.
> No discernable rider error. No bike malfunction. No adverse road
> conditions. No plausible explanation. I suspect it was caused by something
> out there in the recumbent twilight zone.
Maybe he suddenly realized how uncool he looked, and the shock destroyed
his sense of balance :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2007 08:22:00
From: Brother Oswald
Subject: Re: Why Do People Fall Down?
|
"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:mgasu6heta7.76olae3jlbbw.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:06:14 -0500, Brother Oswald wrote:
>
>> Don't know. It's a mystery. I saw it happen to a guy riding my
>> recumbent.
>> No discernable rider error. No bike malfunction. No adverse road
>> conditions. No plausible explanation. I suspect it was caused by
>> something
>> out there in the recumbent twilight zone.
>
> Maybe he suddenly realized how uncool he looked, and the shock destroyed
> his sense of balance :-)
Now that could be. At the time our unlikely test rider was wearing a
florescent yellow spandex pro bike racer outfit advertising a telephone or
some such with goofy sunglasses and helmet that made him look like a alien
from outer space. It was enough to make Superman laugh. The recumbent gods
probably smote him down just to end the embarrassment of it all.
|
|
