long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Apr 2006 22:18:41
From: PB
Subject: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look like
they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?
Phil

Date: 13 Apr 2006 00:42:15
From: JohnD
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

As a lifetime, hard core DF rider I can tell you this:

There are plenty of good reasons either way, but it is safe to say that
if you are ready for the switch, chances are you would be happy on
either a SWB or LWB, and will probably wind up with one of each
someday. In a month you will be used to anything (even a Lightning).
Personally I felt like a geek on a LWB, even though I think some of the
bikes are really cool looking. I can't explain why. Popularity means
nothing. LWB is king in the US, and is all but dead on the contenent.

Make up your own mind and don't be swayed by any argument but what
feels right to you.

One more thing: keep your back relaxed against the seat and do not lean
forward trying to apply power to the pedals. LWB masks this mistake
while SWB exaggerates it and feels very unstable, but only at first.

Date: 12 Apr 2006 19:39:28
From: Bill Patterson
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

Date: 14 Apr 2006 12:03:42
From: nowater
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Bill Patterson" <wm.patterson@earthlink.net > wrote > >
> A properly designed SWB will handle just as well as a LWB.

Yes, if the backrest angle is the same. But the backrest of LWB tends
to be more upright than for SWB, because their bottom bracket (BB)
does not have to be above the front wheel. Thus as a class I think LWB
is easier to ride. Other dimensions of "Handling" like high-speed
cornering etc I am not referring to; I am only referring to ease of
ease of stopping, starting, going up steep hills.

> A SWB is more maneuverable and easier to store and ride slowly.
Riding
> slowly is one of those things you will do at the end of the day on
that
> long hill.

My experience with riding slowly is that the 2 big factors (assuming
effective steering geometry) are an upright backrest angle and
above-seat steering. Any recumbent with both of those should be OK. My
Wilson is a good example, which just happens to be LWB. Tiny photo on
page 6 at http://www.ozhpv.org.au/huff/docs/huff19.pdf (maker now
defunct).

Date: 13 Apr 2006 08:48:57
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

Bill Patterson wrote:

> A SWB is more maneuverable and easier to store and ride slowly.

Depends on the bike. I would imagine a LWB Hase Taigun would be rather
easier to ride at walking pace than a SWB Varna Diabolo, for example.

> slowly is one of those things you will do at the end of the day on that
> long hill. The disadvantage is the ability to hang panniers for touring.

Again, depends on the bike. My SWB Streetmachine is designed for 4
conventional panniers and takes them with with no problems, and in any
case a pair of 'bent specific panniers like the ones Radical make mean
you can get big loads onto most SWB designs with no great problem.

> Try SWB first. If they are too twitchy, turn the front fork around.

Just try everything you reasonably can.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 12 Apr 2006 15:44:32
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Bill Patterson" <wm.patterson@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:443D5771.8020501@earthlink.net...
> PB wrote:
>> I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look
>> like
>> they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
>> Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
>> recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?
>> Phil
>>
>>
> A properly designed SWB will handle just as well as a LWB.
>
> A SWB is more maneuverable and easier to store and ride slowly. Riding
> slowly is one of those things you will do at the end of the day on that
> long hill. The disadvantage is the ability to hang panniers for touring.
>
> Try SWB first. If they are too twitchy, turn the front fork around.

If a SWB base is too twitchy, then forget about it and get a LWB. The only
reason to get a SWB is for ease of transportation and for a more sporty
riding experience. Otherwise, LWB is the only way to go.

The SWB is a very badly designed recumbent from square one whereas a LWB is
just so logical and reasonable. Read the history of the development of
recumbents and you will see that LWB has always been the preferred
configuration. You always want to be sitting between the wheels including
your legs, not having one wheel behind your legs. Just how freaking crazy
can you get! Besides, grown men look like clowns and fools on SWB, most
especially if you are a bit overweight (as almost all Americans are).

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Apr 2006 13:29:05
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

PB wrote:
> I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look like
> they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
> Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
> recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?

If you want something that handles similarly to a DF bike, then a dual
big wheel SWB (often referred to as a "high racer") is as close as
you're going to get. I have a Bacchetta Strada and think it's a great bike.

There are bikes in this configuration that range from touring machines
to all-out speed demons. The main thing going against them is that some
models (especially those more geared toward touring) may be too tall for
someone with shorter legs. Some also don't like the "tweener" or
"superman" handlebar configuration, though alternatives are available,
some don't like the high bottom bracket (there are some with lower BB
height, e.g. the ActionBent HiRacer, but they compromise elsewhere).

The best (and obvious) advice is of course to try bikes and see which
work best for you for the type of riding you do or expect to do. Other
considerations, like overall length of the bike, fitting onto transport
racks on your car, storage space in your garage, etc. are secondary.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

Date: 09 Apr 2006 06:17:28
From: VerusEx@comcast.net
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

Recumbent designs are not as standardized as diamond frames and you
will see more difference between brands and types than you might
expect.

The advice to decide what type of rider you are and then ride bikes of
that type is very good.

The other key is to decide why you want to ride a recumbent. If you
want to go fast, you will probably be disappointed. Yes, there are very
fast recumbents but it takes some time to get fast because they use
different muscles and a differnt riding style than you are used to on a
diamond frrame.

If you want the pain to go away, LWB USS are probably the most
comfortable but most folks pick LWB OSS because it is easier to adjust
to and quicker on the hills. Plus they are used to having their hands
out in front. The USS give the best views when Touring but are hard to
find and expensive.

SWB/MWB recumbents feel quick and are much easier to transport. I think
they have a much sportier feel than a LWB. I like riding them on day
rides but when I tour I ride a LWB. It handles the load better and
feels more reliable.

If you want the fun of feeling like a kid again, just buy anyone that
feels good when you ride it. The Sun bikes are inexpensive and a nice
way to start with a moderate design and a moderate price tag. The
classic names like Easy Racers, Vision and Rans are dependable choices
but if you are looking for something different there are a lot of other
choices.

Don't try to make the ultimate purchase. Don't make the Perfect the
enemy of the Good. Find a bike that you will enjoy now and that
includes price. If you become hooked you won't have any problem
justifying a new bike that fits your more specialized and better
understood needs. A excellent bike still costs less than a good set of
golf clubs ... smile.

Get out and enjoy the ride and don't worry about all of the arguments
about what is the best bike. If you are riding and having fun, that is
the best bike.

Roland
www.ebent.com

Date: 09 Apr 2006 09:59:46
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

PB wrote:
> I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look like
> they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
> Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
> recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?

While touted as a Major Difference I think that in practice the
variation between models in either format is just as great as the
basic differences between the two.

While some 'bents are easier to learn on than others, even a tricky
one will be mastered by anyone that can ride a normal bike after
not too much time, after which you want a bike for reasons other
than "easier to learn on".

I'd decide what functional area you want ("tourer", "racer" etc.
are functional definitions, "recumbent" and "df" aren't) and then
look over what's available, try them out see how you like them. If
lwb or swb is better for you will depend on you and your purpose
and the specific examples, so don't worry too much about where the
wheels go!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 11 Apr 2006 04:26:09
From: Hull 697
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

Peter Clinch Wrote:
> PB wrote
> > I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kin
> look lik
> > they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamon
> frame
> > Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds o
> > recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them
>
> While touted as a Major Difference I think that in practice th
> variation between models in either format is just as great as the basi
> differences between the two.Would have to agree. I went with a CroMo frame because I felt th
aluminum was too "springy"/"rough"/"active"? Kind of hard to quantif
exactly what I did not like about the ride

Peter Clinch Wrote:
> While some 'bents are easier to learn on than others, even a tricky on
> will be mastered by anyone that can ride a normal bike afte
> not too much time, after which you want a bike for reasons othe
> than "easier to learn on".Bang on there. The GF, who has minimal riding experience with AN
bicycle took to bents right away. After riding a few LWB's she als
said "these are like riding dinosaurs, what's all that bike doing ou
in front of me anyway?

Peter Clinch Wrote:
> I'd decide what functional area you want ("tourer", "racer" etc. ar
> functional definitions, "recumbent" and "df" aren't) and the
> look over what's available, try them out see how you like them. I
> lwb or swb is better for you will depend on you and your purpos
> and the specific examples, so don't worry too much about where th
> wheels go!Again, the Scots' analysis is correct. What do you want to do? We rod
many bents and drove approx. 1,000 miles to make up our minds. Afte
several months and hundreds of miles we are very happy with ou
choices

Since well stocked bent stores are few and mostly far between, a fe
pointers if you have to travel

1. Find out where and how long you will be allowed to ride, and wha
deposit they want to turn you loose. I have no problem with leaving m
car keys to take off for an hour or two on someone elses' $2,000 bike
Some go ballistic at such a suggestion

2. OTOH if all I can do is ride around the parking lot, well, that i
not much test riding and I would not drive very far to do it.

3. Call and make sure they have the bikes you want to test the day yo
depart. Getting 3 hours down the road and finding the Aero you wer
salivating to ride was sold yesterday is a downer

4. Be aware that as you test ride, you are building skills you did no
have when you started. This means the bikes you liked or disliked whe
you started may need a second look based priily on what you inten
to do with the bike

Have fun doing this! One of the best things about the world of bents i
there is so much variation. One man's poison is another man's spice

If travelling is not in the equation, then I would look at the use
ket after careful consideration of what I intend to use the bike fo
and a lot of reading on the various 'bent forums. A good used ben
should not depreciate much and you may be able to balance the shippin
costs vs. the travelling costs and potentially the sales tax savings

--
Hull 697

Date: 10 Apr 2006 11:39:03
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

In article <49s0o0FqamrtU1@individual.net >, Peter Clinch
(p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk) wrote:

> While some 'bents are easier to learn on than others, even a tricky
> one will be mastered by anyone that can ride a normal bike after
> not too much time, after which you want a bike for reasons other
> than "easier to learn on".

FSVO "anyone". When I first tried an Avatar, I just could /not/ get the
thing to remain upright and remained on three wheels for a further six
years. Then Miles Kingsbury brought the prototype Kingcycle to the 1989
BHPC AGM and I was able to hop on and do a couple of high-speed laps
straight away. Seventeen further years of SWB use later, I still find
LWBs to be something of a handful...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
My other motto is in Latin.

Date: 10 Apr 2006 11:10:33
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1ea44620f803d234989a9c@news.individual.net...
> In article <49s0o0FqamrtU1@individual.net>, Peter Clinch
> (p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>> While some 'bents are easier to learn on than others, even a tricky
>> one will be mastered by anyone that can ride a normal bike after
>> not too much time, after which you want a bike for reasons other
>> than "easier to learn on".
>
> FSVO "anyone". When I first tried an Avatar, I just could /not/ get the
> thing to remain upright and remained on three wheels for a further six
> years. Then Miles Kingsbury brought the prototype Kingcycle to the 1989
> BHPC AGM and I was able to hop on and do a couple of high-speed laps
> straight away. Seventeen further years of SWB use later, I still find
> LWBs to be something of a handful...

I think my Infinity is like the Avatar. It too does not handle as well as I
could wish. By and large, I do not like underseat steering. After I had my
Infinity for a year, I got a Tour Easy and my troubles were over.

USS LWB will have a very quick steering input compared to OSS. Btu I do not
like USS even in connection with a SWB. It is always just too damn quick.

I will say this for SWB - they are more fun to ride, but you have to stay
focused. You cannot really relax on them like you can on a LWB OSS.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Apr 2006 20:35:21
From: Jeff Wills
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

JKimmel wrote:
I wouldn't
> recommend selecting a bike, even a first bike based on wheelbase. The
> best way is to ride a few and go with the one you like best. The next
> best way is to go for the cheapest.
>

Ditto. I spent 12 years riding a SWB Lightning until I switched to a
LWB Tour Easy three years ago. Both are fine, fast bikes, and I would
have a hard time recommending one over the other.

Jeff

Date: 08 Apr 2006 20:06:44
From: JKimmel
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

PB wrote:
> I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look like
> they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
> Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
> recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?
> Phil
>
>
I have two Vision R-40's. One lwb, the other swb. The LWB is more
stable (I can almost ride with my hands off the handle bar) and has a
softer ride. The swb can go on a bus rack, and looks a lot cooler. The
LWB isn't any easier to ride than the SWB, but I feel more comfortable
riding at the edge of the pavement. It's a lot more awkward to
transport and store, and I can't take it on the bus with me. I wouldn't
recommend selecting a bike, even a first bike based on wheelbase. The
best way is to ride a few and go with the one you like best. The next
best way is to go for the cheapest.

--
J Kimmel
myname@whereIwork.com
www.metalinnovations.com

"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.

Date: 09 Apr 2006 13:20:42
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"JKimmel" <myname@whereiwork.com > wrote in message
news:OeudnST4_vGv56XZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> PB wrote:
>> I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look
>> like
>> they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
>> Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
>> recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?
>> Phil
>>
>>
> I have two Vision R-40's. One lwb, the other swb. The LWB is more stable
> (I can almost ride with my hands off the handle bar) and has a softer
> ride.

Yes, the LWB Vision is a much better bike than the SWB Vision, but there is
no way you can ride either of them with hands off the handle bars.

The swb can go on a bus rack, and looks a lot cooler. The
> LWB isn't any easier to ride than the SWB, but I feel more comfortable
> riding at the edge of the pavement.

I think you have better control on the LWB which is why you can ride it at
the edge of the pavement. I rode my SWB Vision on a couple of tours once and
it was a misery. Now, my only bike for touring is my Vision LWB OSS.

It's a lot more awkward to
> transport and store, and I can't take it on the bus with me. I wouldn't
> recommend selecting a bike, even a first bike based on wheelbase.

The wheelbase is a very important consideration when it comes to recumbents.
The shorter the wheel base, the more difficult they are to control That is
why most SWBs' have gotten longer and longer wheel bases lately. The Vision
SWB was a very short wheel base.

The
> best way is to ride a few and go with the one you like best. The next
> best way is to go for the cheapest.

Test riding a recumbent is vastly overrated. You really can't tell much
about a bike by riding it for a few hours. But it is something that
everyone says in order not to be pinned down. I got into many a heated
argument with Larry Varney on ARBR (now of BROL) about all this test riding
crapola business.

Almost all recumbents are outrageously priced. Get the right frame
configuration with a comfy seat and forget about pricey components. That is
for the suckers who have more money than brains.

Frankly, I do not like SWB and I will gladly tell anyone who asks why I
don't like them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 12 Apr 2006 20:50:54
From: John Kimmel
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "JKimmel" <myname@whereiwork.com> wrote in message
> news:OeudnST4_vGv56XZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
>>PB wrote:
>>
>>>I am planning to buy a recumbent bicycle. The long wheel base kind look
>>>like
>>>they will be easier to learn to ride for someone used to a diamond frame.
>>>Can experienced riders give me their opinions of these two kinds of
>>>recumbents and what I should consider in choosing between them?
>>>Phil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I have two Vision R-40's. One lwb, the other swb. The LWB is more stable
>>(I can almost ride with my hands off the handle bar) and has a softer
>>ride.
>
>
> Yes, the LWB Vision is a much better bike than the SWB Vision, but there is
> no way you can ride either of them with hands off the handle bars.
>
I was mistaken when I said I could almost ride my LWB Vision hands off.
In fact, I can ride my LWB Vision hands off quite comfortably, with
both hands clasped across my ample belly. I can also ride my SWB Vision
hands off, but it requires more arm waving.

As to why I would ride any bike hands off: To pull up my sleeve and
read my watch, to zip or unzip my jacket, or put it on or take it off,
to remove the bug that flew into my helmet etc. I can check my watch
while riding a recumbent hands off, but that's about it.

I do like my SWB better than my LWB, mainly for the practicality, but
also because it's more fun to ride.

I recommend you (the OP) buy the R-40 posted for sale yesterday morning
in this newsgroup.
--
John Kimmel
gNuOySnPoAiMr@sNpOiSrPeAtMech.com

GET YER STINKING PAWS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY APE!

Date: 12 Apr 2006 23:54:11
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"John Kimmel" <guyinthetrenchcoat@whogetsthejobdone.com > wrote in message
news:443DCA9E.4050401@whogetsthejobdone.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Yes, the LWB Vision is a much better bike than the SWB Vision, but there
>> is no way you can ride either of them with hands off the handle bars.
>>
> I was mistaken when I said I could almost ride my LWB Vision hands off.
> In fact, I can ride my LWB Vision hands off quite comfortably, with
> both hands clasped across my ample belly. I can also ride my SWB Vision
> hands off, but it requires more arm waving.
>
> As to why I would ride any bike hands off: To pull up my sleeve and
> read my watch, to zip or unzip my jacket, or put it on or take it off,
> to remove the bug that flew into my helmet etc. I can check my watch
> while riding a recumbent hands off, but that's about it.
[...]

There is no recumbent ever made that can be ridden hands off. Why is Mr.
Kimmel telling us tall tales?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 14 Apr 2006 10:29:53
From: nowater
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote >
> There is no recumbent ever made that can be ridden hands off. Why is
Mr.
> Kimmel telling us tall tales?

http://www.python-lowracer.de/

Date: 15 Apr 2006 17:53:12
From: BioHazard
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"nowater" <nowater@grantsellek.com > wrote in news:443ef409$1_3
@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:

> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote >
>> There is no recumbent ever made that can be ridden hands off. Why is
> Mr.
>> Kimmel telling us tall tales?
>
> http://www.python-lowracer.de/
>
>

I ride my auder lowracer hands off all the time. Even have a video of
it for proof.

Brad

Date: 16 Apr 2006 10:03:46
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

BioHazard wrote:

> I ride my auder lowracer hands off all the time. Even have a video of
> it for proof.

The Flevobike "Bike" and "Racer" models don't have conventional
handlebar and fork steering but pivot in the middle, steering
controlled by the legs. The bars are merely are place to put the
brake and gear levers and have nothing to do with steering, so it's
no probem for their riders to get about hands-free.

German special-needs specialist Draisin make a recumbent trike that
has optional adaptations to be steered with the hips. Not only can
it be ridden hands free, but by a rider with no hands, or even
arms! (braking adaptations too to allow safe riding.)

But then since these are merely illustrations that Ed doesn't know
what he's talking about, it's none too surprising such machines
exist...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Date: 16 Apr 2006 14:32:36
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4aefjiFs791fU1@individual.net...
> BioHazard wrote:
>
>> I ride my auder lowracer hands off all the time. Even have a video of
>> it for proof.
>
> The Flevobike "Bike" and "Racer" models don't have conventional handlebar
> and fork steering but pivot in the middle, steering controlled by the
> legs. The bars are merely are place to put the brake and gear levers and
> have nothing to do with steering, so it's no probem for their riders to
> get about hands-free.
>
> German special-needs specialist Draisin make a recumbent trike that has
> optional adaptations to be steered with the hips. Not only can it be
> ridden hands free, but by a rider with no hands, or even arms! (braking
> adaptations too to allow safe riding.)
>
> But then since these are merely illustrations that Ed doesn't know what
> he's talking about, it's none too surprising such machines exist...

I have 12 recumbents of every configuration. They are all older models, but
I assure you that none of them can be ridden hands off.

Any bike that does not have conventional handlebar and fork steering is
strictly for a nut and a screwball like Peter Clinch. But note his signature
below. Does that not tell us everything we will ever want to know about him.

> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I can't begin to tell you how much his signature disgusts me - and indeed
horrifies me! How can such a person exist? Please note my modest and humble
signature below and then you tell me who is sane and who is insane.
Gentlemen, I rest my case!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 15 Apr 2006 20:31:30
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"BioHazard" <bio@hazard.com > wrote in message
news:Xns97A6C0267898Bx@216.196.97.142...
> "nowater" <nowater@grantsellek.com> wrote in news:443ef409$1_3
> @news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:
>
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote >
>>> There is no recumbent ever made that can be ridden hands off. Why is
>> Mr.
>>> Kimmel telling us tall tales?
>>
>> http://www.python-lowracer.de/
>>
>>
>
> I ride my auder lowracer hands off all the time. Even have a video of
> it for proof.
>
> Brad

I have 12 recumbent bikes sitting around my house and I cannot ride any of
them hands off, not even for a second. Who I am going to believe - myself or
some nut who calls himself BioHazard?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 16 Apr 2006 10:47:16
From: BioHazard
Subject: Re: long wheel base vs short wheel base recumbents

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in
news:xpidncJpNpzuA9zZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com:

>
> "BioHazard" <bio@hazard.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97A6C0267898Bx@216.196.97.142...
>> "nowater" <nowater@grantsellek.com> wrote in news:443ef409$1_3
>> @news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:
>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote >
>>>> There is no recumbent ever made that can be ridden hands off. Why
>>>> is
>>> Mr.
>>>> Kimmel telling us tall tales?
>>>
>>> http://www.python-lowracer.de/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I ride my auder lowracer hands off all the time. Even have a video
>> of it for proof.
>>
>> Brad
>
> I have 12 recumbent bikes sitting around my house and I cannot ride
> any of them hands off, not even for a second. Who I am going to
> believe - myself or some nut who calls himself BioHazard?
>

Well, I think you should believe a nut who calls himself Biohazard as
this video will prove...

http://www.atomiczombie.com/secret/nohands.wmv

More of the bike can be found in the gallery and plans section of the
site.

Cheers.