bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 04 Oct 2007 09:49:48 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Pedal Forward Bike A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward RANS bike frame and built it up with high grade components. This is pretty much what it looks like: http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike including those 'comfort' bikes. What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat similar to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line but also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and the scenery without having to crane my neck up. I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially clothed to use it. I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in range by the unusual configuration. I'm impressed. -paul (not a bike expert by any means).   Date: 14 Oct 2007 17:34:09 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike DougC wrote: > > Chalo wrote: > > > > My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong > > rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long > > before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been > > reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the > > compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the > > fronts of 'bents. > > Choppers are fundamentally different than most recumbents, in that > choppers use foolishly-elongated fork blades that end up flexy. That > leads to a number of problems that essentially cannot be fixed without > shortening the forks. Poor front wheel traction is not one of those problems, though. Fork flex is in effect a form of suspension that improves traction rather than diminishing it. > > (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist > > group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin > > the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a > > brake.) > > Many recumbents do have a rearward weight distribution--but accelerating > takes weight off the front wheel, where braking places more weight > temporarily on it. Weight shift under braking certainly improves rear wheel traction, but the acceleration afforded by an electric hub motor is not strong. > And yes--you can put a decent front hub motor on an > upright bike, and a good battery will spin that wheel too. Ever notice > that dragsters traditionally have rear-wheel-drive? My e-bike has the strongest direct drive hub motor I could find (around 50 newton-meters and 1000 watts at 36V). The bike has a strong rear weight bias because it is very tall, but it has normal length chainstays. But the only wheelspin I have observed has occurred while climbing a very steep hill, on wet brick pavement, and then only along with my strongest pedal strokes as I muscled the bike up the hill. I am sure that reduced tractive effort at the perimeter of the >28" wheel (versus a 16" or 20" wheel) and my ability to shift my own weight forward helped make the difference between my experience and that of the 'bent riders on Yahoo power-assist who report wheel slip. To my knowledge, none of the 'bent guys run such a large front hub motor, because its ~10" diameter is a poor match for a small wheel. > I've not had the problem of a skidding front wheel during any stops, > unless I was riding in gravel. If I squeeze the (avid bb5 160mm) brakes > both as hard as possible on clean pavement (if I am holding a straight > lie or turning) the bike just stops really fast. Both tires are rated > for 100 PSI but the recumbent carries about 66% of the weigh on the rear > tire, and so no matter what set of tires I am using, my front tire is > (/properly/) inflated to around half the pressure that the rear is. That's a good point. Tire inflation pressure probably accounts for at least some of the power-assist guys' traction issues. Most of the folks on that group have a semi-na=EFve fixation on extreme tire pressures for presumed maximum efficiency. > I have never ever been able to lock up the front tire on clean pavement > nor have I been able to lift the rear tire, Then your brake isn't as strong as it could be, because one or the other will inevitably occur in the presence of sufficient braking torque. Tip-up is easier to recover through rider feedback than front wheel slip is, though. Chalo   Date: 14 Oct 2007 05:05:54 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike DougC wrote: > > One great advantage is that on the recumbent, my eyesight is naturally > facing /forward/, not down at my front wheel. Another great advantage is > that I can use my brakes as hard as I wish, without worrying about > tipping over forward. My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the fronts of 'bents. (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a brake.) I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger potential problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a turn. Hard experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel sideslip is often recoverable, but front wheel sideslip usually leads to an instant crash. Chalo     Date: 14 Oct 2007 17:17:26 From: Steve Gravrock Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On 2007-10-14, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger potential > problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a turn. Hard > experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel sideslip is > often recoverable, but front wheel sideslip usually leads to an > instant crash. That's the conventional wisdom, which is why the usual advice on the icebike list is to rely mainly on the rear brake when riding on snow and ice. I managed to stay up through my one front wheel lockup last winter, probably because I was going more or less straight and the wheel started to roll again before I really had a chance to fall over. I wouldn't chalk it up to any skill on my part, and I wouldn't want to try my luck again.       Date: 15 Oct 2007 20:51:46 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Steve Gravrock writes: >> I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger >> potential problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a >> turn. Hard experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel >> side slip is often recoverable, but front wheel side slip usually >> leads to an instant crash. > That's the conventional wisdom, which is why the usual advice on the > icebike list is to rely mainly on the rear brake when riding on snow > and ice. I managed to stay up through my one front wheel lockup > last winter, probably because I was going more or less straight and > the wheel started to roll again before I really had a chance to fall > over. I wouldn't chalk it up to any skill on my part, and I > wouldn't want to try my luck again. I find that, when riding in deeper snow (straight ahead), skidding the front wheel isn't the hazard it often is because the wheel slides like a sled runner in a snow slot. As I have mentioned, braking with the rear wheel on lake ice is a bit more difficult and requires ABS that one can furnish by turning the pedals in top gear at no load but in drive contact. When the rear wheel skids, it loses all traction and stops instantly, something that is apparent through the feet stopping abruptly. In my experience, response time to release the rear brake is in milliseconds and avoids any loss of control. Jobst Brandt     Date: 14 Oct 2007 06:20:36 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > DougC wrote: >> One great advantage is that on the recumbent, my eyesight is naturally >> facing /forward/, not down at my front wheel. Another great advantage is >> that I can use my brakes as hard as I wish, without worrying about >> tipping over forward. > > My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong > rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long > before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been > reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the > compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the > fronts of 'bents. (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist > group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin > the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a > brake.) Losing traction on front wheel drive recumbents is mostly a problem when climbing hills, due the the rearward weight shift. As for the alleged problem of front wheel lock-up during braking, it is not an issue on road riding. I have a bike that is a little too small for me, to the point I can do "power wheelies" from a dead stop by using a low gear. However, front wheel lock-up is not an issue in the dry (it can be done in the wet or on loose surfaces, but the same can be said of a conventional upright). Furthermore, the rear weight bias makes the rear brake much more useful for stopping compared to the situation on a conventional upright. > I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger potential > problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a turn. Hard > experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel sideslip is > often recoverable, but front wheel sideslip usually leads to an > instant crash. I wish upright riders with little to no recumbent riding experience would stop making "expert" proclamations. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 14 Oct 2007 05:38:53 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo wrote: > > My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong > rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long > before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been > reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the > compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the > fronts of 'bents. Choppers are fundamentally different than most recumbents, in that choppers use foolishly-elongated fork blades that end up flexy. That leads to a number of problems that essentially cannot be fixed without shortening the forks. Recumbents generally only use forks that are long enough to clear the intended front wheel's radius. (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist > group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin > the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a > brake.) Many recumbents do have a rearward weight distribution--but accelerating takes weight off the front wheel, where braking places more weight temporarily on it. And yes--you can put a decent front hub motor on an upright bike, and a good battery will spin that wheel too. Ever notice that dragsters traditionally have rear-wheel-drive? I've not had the problem of a skidding front wheel during any stops, unless I was riding in gravel. If I squeeze the (avid bb5 160mm) brakes both as hard as possible on clean pavement (if I am holding a straight lie or turning) the bike just stops really fast. Both tires are rated for 100 PSI but the recumbent carries about 66% of the weigh on the rear tire, and so no matter what set of tires I am using, my front tire is (/properly/) inflated to around half the pressure that the rear is. I have never ever been able to lock up the front tire on clean pavement nor have I been able to lift the rear tire, and for these reasons I believe that longer recumbents are generally safer in emergency stops than upright bikes are, due to the rear weight bias that longer recumbents have. Some of the SWB or highracer recumbents will get close or hit 50/50. {-as an aside--the RANS Fusion will /also/ not tip forward under hard braking, another reason I like it for city use. It has 200mm BB7 brakes on it, and I am 6'2" tall and weight about 280 lbs. The Fusion seems to get about a 66% rear weight distribution with me on it-} > I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger potential > problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a turn. Hard > experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel sideslip is > often recoverable, but front wheel sideslip usually leads to an > instant crash. > I don't disagree with that. Tires in general need to be inflated proportional to the loads they are carrying (assuming all the pressure stay inside the tires' limits). With upright bikes the usual design is very close to 50/50 front/rear so there's no cause for concern, any difference is generally small and not observable in actual use. With some recumbents (and riders), there may be as much as 66% weight on the rear wheel, and in that case, the front tire should only be inflated to around half the pressure that the rear is. I tend to suspect a lot of people with recumbents who complain of poor cornering (front wheel sliding out) simply have their front tires overinflated. They have front and rear tires the same width and model, and so they automatically inflate them both to the (same) sidewall limits, in an effort to reduce rolling resistance as much as possible. Then they get on bentrideronline and complain about "the bike's lousy steering", or ask "what's a good front tire to buy", when their front tire will work just fine if they'd just tap some air out of it. A lightly-loaded overinflated tire will "bounce" down the road instead of roll down it. ~   Date: 13 Oct 2007 05:07:25 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 12, 4:52 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article <femejg$j8...@registered.motzarella.org>, > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: > > > ... > > > 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) > > > brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get > > > recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for > > > short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can > > > think of for that are: > > > A) you're losing your nerve or > > > B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. > > > Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention > > [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs > > some work. > > > [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less > > about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn > > business. > > Minding other people's business is people's business. > We are social creatures. Your job, should you wish to > accept it, is to find a way to divert the attention > without attracting more attention. Write a letter to > Miss Manners. Black or blue-black ink on plain > stationary. Seriously. > Why would you want to inflict Sherman on Judith Martin (aka, "Miss Manners")? :-O     Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:40:23 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Oct 12, 4:52 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> In article <femejg$j8...@registered.motzarella.org>, >> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: >>>> ... >>>> 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) >>>> brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get >>>> recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for >>>> short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can >>>> think of for that are: >>>> A) you're losing your nerve or >>>> B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. >>> Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention >>> [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs >>> some work. >>> [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less >>> about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn >>> business. >> Minding other people's business is people's business. >> We are social creatures. Your job, should you wish to >> accept it, is to find a way to divert the attention >> without attracting more attention. Write a letter to >> Miss Manners. Black or blue-black ink on plain >> stationary. Seriously. >> > > Why would you want to inflict Sherman on Judith Martin (aka, "Miss > Manners")? :-O Or "Ozark Bicycle" for that matter? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:25:22 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again In article <1192207001.721434.244060@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > writes: > Bob wrote: >> >> BTW, if >> one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the >> market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very >> effective marketing tool. > > Big Wheels were recumbents, and they did not succeed in damaging the > impressionable young minds of my generation badly enough to make us > want 'bents later. Didn't one of those things appear in 'The Shining'? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:22:24 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <rcousine-AC9D23.19581812102007@news.telus.net >, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > writes: [snip] >> > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> >> Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> > Er, What? >> >> Woman on tallbike, crossing a bridge, tumbles. The guardrail merely >> prevented the bike from dropping into a '65'mph traffic lane below. >> Youtube has already pulled it. > > Gah! That's horrible. > > I should say that while tallbikes are quite stable, no bicycle is > perfectly stable. That said, if I had a tallbike, stable handling or no, > I'd be pretty leery about riding it over a bridge with normal-height > railings. > > Weird accidents happen, but perhaps most often to people doing weird > things, I can no longer ride over the Knight St bridge (upon which cyclists are relegated to the narrow sidewalk.) My saddle is about as high as the guardrail, and having that huge void/empty space on my right side has become disconcerting. There's too much broken glass along there anyway, from bottles fallen out of bottle-pickers' shopping carts, and many of my transits of that bridge are at night. And one encounters so many oncoming riders, most of whom have no intention to yield to anyone. It's a nice walk, though. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 13 Oct 2007 12:17:52 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:22:24 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <rcousine-AC9D23.19581812102007@news.telus.net>, > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes: > >[snip] > >>> > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>> >> Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? >>> >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> > Er, What? >>> >>> Woman on tallbike, crossing a bridge, tumbles. The guardrail merely >>> prevented the bike from dropping into a '65'mph traffic lane below. >>> Youtube has already pulled it. >> >> Gah! That's horrible. >> >> I should say that while tallbikes are quite stable, no bicycle is >> perfectly stable. That said, if I had a tallbike, stable handling or no, >> I'd be pretty leery about riding it over a bridge with normal-height >> railings. >> >> Weird accidents happen, but perhaps most often to people doing weird >> things, > >I can no longer ride over the Knight St bridge >(upon which cyclists are relegated to the >narrow sidewalk.) My saddle is about as high >as the guardrail, and having that huge void/empty >space on my right side has become disconcerting. > >There's too much broken glass along there anyway, >from bottles fallen out of bottle-pickers' >shopping carts, and many of my transits of that >bridge are at night. > >And one encounters so many oncoming riders, most >of whom have no intention to yield to anyone. > >It's a nice walk, though. > > >cheers, > Tom Dear Tom, Heading north: http://i23.tinypic.com/m7zyhk.jpg Heading south: http://i21.tinypic.com/6if9qs.jpg The concrete on the far right shows how long the handlebar-wide "path" is. If two riders start from opposite ends, one rider must throw his bike into the Arkansas. Luckily, there's no path on the other side. Walk bike! Carl Fogel       Date: 13 Oct 2007 18:39:28 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Carl Fogel writes: > Heading north: http://i23.tinypic.com/m7zyhk.jpg > Heading south: http://i21.tinypic.com/6if9qs.jpg > The concrete on the far right shows how long the handlebar-wide > "path" is. > If two riders start from opposite ends, one rider must throw his > bike into the Arkansas. > Luckily, there's no path on the other side. > Walk bike! Why are they riding on the bumpy ill kept sidewalk in the first place? Jobst Brandt         Date: 13 Oct 2007 15:28:39 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On 13 Oct 2007 18:39:28 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >> Heading north: > > http://i23.tinypic.com/m7zyhk.jpg > >> Heading south: > > http://i21.tinypic.com/6if9qs.jpg > >> The concrete on the far right shows how long the handlebar-wide >> "path" is. > >> If two riders start from opposite ends, one rider must throw his >> bike into the Arkansas. > >> Luckily, there's no path on the other side. > >> Walk bike! > >Why are they riding on the bumpy ill kept sidewalk in the first place? > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Well, from the north . . . Some bicyclists use that north-south bike trail next to the road because that's the only way to reach the river from Pueblo West. Bicycles are forbidden on that road to within a quarter mile of the bridge in the picture. That is, riders _must_ use the trail almost to the bridge. Otherwise they'll be stopped and given a ticket by swarms of park rangers enforcing the clearly posted no-bikes-allowed signs. Since there's no sign that says it's okay to start using the road at the river, some riders stay on the trail on the left side of the road and walk across. The yellow on this map shows the no-bikes-on-road north stretch of the road: http://i21.tinypic.com/8y6hsi.jpg I never go up that way from the river, since that route adds a 20 mile loop through Pueblo West's goathead gardens (flat tires, boring scenery, and hideous commuter traffic) to my 15 mile ride. Plus, the required bike trail north of the bridge swoops up and down _very_ steeply through enormous gullies that the no-bikes road crosses on gigantic causeways. From the south . . . Some bicyclists use the silly walk-bikes mess across the bridge because they've been on a nice bike path on the south side of the river for two miles, even though bicycles are legal on the no-shoulder road on that side of the river. That silly bridge arrangement is actually just a weird fisherman's dock. (There's no railing on path on the upstream side, just the concrete barrier.) Anglers cast downstream over the railing for trout and are protected from traffic by the waist-high concrete barrier. Sometimes fishermen hook boats being towed down the road on their backcast. I once saw a fishing road torn from a fisherman's grasp, clattering along the pavement toward Pueblo West, with the nitwit screaming at the truck towing the boat to stop. From the east . . . Some bicyclists use the silly bridge mess because they just reached the road on the main bike trail, about fifty feet north of the bridge, after riding 6 miles up the cottonwood valley along the river. They're just following the trail. That's how I get to the bridge, riding west up the river trail, but I know the area and just cross the road and use it instead of following the path. Some sensitive folk do complain that the 6-mile long river trail is bumpy where the tree roots have grown up under the asphalt and concrete. But heck, there's only one spot on that fairly flat trail where I get airborne because the tree roots have buckled the concrete up into a launching ramp. And they _did_ put a sign up saying, "Caution Trail Damage Ahead," so what more can I ask for? Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 13 Oct 2007 08:57:02 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > Chalo wrote: > > > > The 'bent equivalent of the safety bicycle, the > > design that overtakes all others because of its general superiority, > > has not yet been developed. I think there are strong reasons to > > suggest that it _can't_ be developed because of the intrinsic dynamic > > challenges of 'bents. A successful 'bent motorcycle has not yet been > > made for many of the same reasons. But who knows? Just like pigs > > could eventually evolve wings, someone could one day design a stable, > > tractable, multi-surface, no-handable 'bent bike. > > In fairness to the argument, I think the reason that motorcycles don't > thrive in recumbent form (and if the latest variations on the Yamaha > Majest/Piaggio Hexagon/choose your 650cc scooter aren't feet-forward > semi-bent motorcycles, I'm not sure what would be) is because ground > clearance for cornering is a substantial issue. Custom Harleys with gynecologist-table riding positions are also pretty much semi-'bent. Dan Gurney's "Alligator" motorcycles are the closest thing I've seen to 'bent motorcycles. But if you examine them, you'll find that they have their steering geometry and a lot of other factors in common with normal motorcycles. It's pretty much just the rider's position (and to a lesser extent, their wheelbase lengths) that differ substantially from common motorbikes. http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_photo21.html I think the "different = better" philosophy that characterizes most 'bent enthusiasts has largely been responsible for the abandonment of so many of the design features of normal bikes that work especially well. Sure, there are some elements of a bike that must change so that a La-Z-Boy cockpit can be incorporated, but probably not all the things that generally do distinguish 'bents from normal bikes. Bicycle steering geometry, for instance, is a delicately balance of many interrelated factors, and designs that deliver good results were arrived at through many, many iterations and much applied testing. For 'bent guys to come in and assume that they can make it better by doing something radically different is, in my observation, always mistaken. If they prefer a hospital bed to a bike saddle, more power to 'em-- but they should incorporate that feature into a chassis that already does what it's supposed to do. Chalo     Date: 13 Oct 2007 18:51:47 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <1192265822.986517.186650@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > > Chalo wrote: > > > > > > The 'bent equivalent of the safety bicycle, the > > > design that overtakes all others because of its general superiority, > > > has not yet been developed. I think there are strong reasons to > > > suggest that it _can't_ be developed because of the intrinsic dynamic > > > challenges of 'bents. A successful 'bent motorcycle has not yet been > > > made for many of the same reasons. But who knows? Just like pigs > > > could eventually evolve wings, someone could one day design a stable, > > > tractable, multi-surface, no-handable 'bent bike. > > > > In fairness to the argument, I think the reason that motorcycles don't > > thrive in recumbent form (and if the latest variations on the Yamaha > > Majest/Piaggio Hexagon/choose your 650cc scooter aren't feet-forward > > semi-bent motorcycles, I'm not sure what would be) is because ground > > clearance for cornering is a substantial issue. > > Custom Harleys with gynecologist-table riding positions are also > pretty much semi-'bent. Good point. I forgot about cruisers. > Dan Gurney's "Alligator" motorcycles are the closest thing I've seen > to 'bent motorcycles. But if you examine them, you'll find that they > have their steering geometry and a lot of other factors in common with > normal motorcycles. It's pretty much just the rider's position (and > to a lesser extent, their wheelbase lengths) that differ substantially > from common motorbikes. > > http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html > http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_photo21.html What the- I'd never heard of this thing before. At least Mr. Gurney isn't claiming there's a good reason for doing it: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_history.html > I think the "different = better" philosophy that characterizes most > 'bent enthusiasts has largely been responsible for the abandonment of > so many of the design features of normal bikes that work especially > well. Sure, there are some elements of a bike that must change so > that a La-Z-Boy cockpit can be incorporated, but probably not all the > things that generally do distinguish 'bents from normal bikes. > > Bicycle steering geometry, for instance, is a delicately balance of > many interrelated factors, and designs that deliver good results were > arrived at through many, many iterations and much applied testing. > For 'bent guys to come in and assume that they can make it better by > doing something radically different is, in my observation, always > mistaken. If they prefer a hospital bed to a bike saddle, more power > to 'em-- but they should incorporate that feature into a chassis that > already does what it's supposed to do. I don't hear a lot of reports of instability on these things at above-slow speeds, barring the occasional full-faired model that gets sideways and becomes an airfoil for a few seconds. I think that the key thing is that the human body doesn't interact, weight-and-balance wise, with a recumbent in the same way as a DF bike. You're effectively unable to use your body weight to manage balance at low speeds. And, you know, the "opposite of a tallbike" thing. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing       Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:19:58 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <1192265822.986517.186650@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> Chalo wrote: >>>> The 'bent equivalent of the safety bicycle, the >>>> design that overtakes all others because of its general superiority, >>>> has not yet been developed. I think there are strong reasons to >>>> suggest that it _can't_ be developed because of the intrinsic dynamic >>>> challenges of 'bents. A successful 'bent motorcycle has not yet been >>>> made for many of the same reasons. But who knows? Just like pigs >>>> could eventually evolve wings, someone could one day design a stable, >>>> tractable, multi-surface, no-handable 'bent bike. >>> In fairness to the argument, I think the reason that motorcycles don't >>> thrive in recumbent form (and if the latest variations on the Yamaha >>> Majest/Piaggio Hexagon/choose your 650cc scooter aren't feet-forward >>> semi-bent motorcycles, I'm not sure what would be) is because ground >>> clearance for cornering is a substantial issue. >> Custom Harleys with gynecologist-table riding positions are also >> pretty much semi-'bent. > > Good point. I forgot about cruisers. > >> Dan Gurney's "Alligator" motorcycles are the closest thing I've seen >> to 'bent motorcycles. But if you examine them, you'll find that they >> have their steering geometry and a lot of other factors in common with >> normal motorcycles. It's pretty much just the rider's position (and >> to a lesser extent, their wheelbase lengths) that differ substantially >> from common motorbikes. >> >> http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html >> http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_photo21.html > > What the- I'd never heard of this thing before. At least Mr. Gurney > isn't claiming there's a good reason for doing it: > > http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_history.html > >> I think the "different = better" philosophy that characterizes most >> 'bent enthusiasts has largely been responsible for the abandonment of >> so many of the design features of normal bikes that work especially >> well. Sure, there are some elements of a bike that must change so >> that a La-Z-Boy cockpit can be incorporated, but probably not all the >> things that generally do distinguish 'bents from normal bikes. >> >> Bicycle steering geometry, for instance, is a delicately balance of >> many interrelated factors, and designs that deliver good results were >> arrived at through many, many iterations and much applied testing. >> For 'bent guys to come in and assume that they can make it better by >> doing something radically different is, in my observation, always >> mistaken. If they prefer a hospital bed to a bike saddle, more power >> to 'em-- but they should incorporate that feature into a chassis that >> already does what it's supposed to do. > > I don't hear a lot of reports of instability on these things at > above-slow speeds, barring the occasional full-faired model that gets > sideways and becomes an airfoil for a few seconds. Try a fully-faired upright if you want instability in windy conditions! That is one reason why practically all full-faired speed record attempts (and records set) have been on bikes with recumbent chassis. > I think that the key thing is that the human body doesn't interact, > weight-and-balance wise, with a recumbent in the same way as a DF bike. > You're effectively unable to use your body weight to manage balance at > low speeds. Yes, steering is the primary mechanism. I think this is why some VERY experience upright riders who use a lot of "body English" fail on their attempts to ride recumbents, while relative newbies get it within a few minutes of tooling around a parking lot. > And, you know, the "opposite of a tallbike" thing. Exactly. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!         Date: 15 Oct 2007 16:37:49 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:19:58 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > >Try a fully-faired upright if you want instability in windy conditions! A full deck of spoke cards in ther front wheel of a track bike will make it squirrely in gusts. -- zk           Date: 17 Oct 2007 21:03:03 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Zoot Katz wrote: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:19:58 -0500, Tom Sherman > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Try a fully-faired upright if you want instability in windy conditions! > > A full deck of spoke cards in ther front wheel of a track bike will > make it squirrely in gusts. There is a reason why racers only use disc wheels on the back during time trials, and not on the front. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 12 Oct 2007 19:39:00 From: Bob Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Oct 12, 11:36 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > BTW, if > > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > > effective marketing tool. > > Big Wheels were recumbents, and they did not succeed in damaging the > impressionable young minds of my generation badly enough to make us > want 'bents later. > > Chalo Yes but those kids on Big Wheels were just waiting to "graduate to a *real* bike". Big Wheels do pose an interesting question though. Are 'bent riders young at heart or just reliving their childhood? ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:16:10 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:36:41 +0000, Chalo wrote: > Bob wrote: >> >> BTW, if one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the >> market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very >> effective marketing tool. > > Big Wheels were recumbents, and they did not succeed in damaging the > impressionable young minds of my generation badly enough to make us want > 'bents later. Ah, you youngsters. Big wheels came out years after I was riding on two wheels. They looked like fun.   Date: 12 Oct 2007 10:18:23 From: Hank Wirtz Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Oct 12, 9:26 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > Clive George wrote: > > > Bob wrote: > > > > The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if > > > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > > > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > > > effective marketing tool. > > > KMX Karts. > > Banana Bike and derivatives: > > http://trailmate.com/productMiniPeel.cfm > > Chalo Sweet jebus I hate those things. I was on tour this summer, and after pulling a hamstring, took a rest day at a KOA. They had a whole bunch of Trailmate Banana Peels and Low Riders (both recumbent trikes) for rent. There were a bunch of 12-14 year olds riding like maniacs through the campground, pulling the flagpoles off to joust with, trying to tip them and ride on 2 wheels, nearly hitting a couple of toddlers, and being general hoodlums. I blame the recumbent trikes. :)     Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:45:41 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again Hank Wirtz wrote: > On Oct 12, 9:26 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Clive George wrote: >> >>> Bob wrote: >>>> The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if >>>> one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the >>>> market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very >>>> effective marketing tool. >>> KMX Karts. >> Banana Bike and derivatives: >> >> http://trailmate.com/productMiniPeel.cfm >> >> Chalo > > Sweet jebus I hate those things. > > I was on tour this summer, and after pulling a hamstring, took a rest > day at a KOA. They had a whole bunch of Trailmate Banana Peels and Low > Riders (both recumbent trikes) for rent. There were a bunch of 12-14 > year olds riding like maniacs through the campground, pulling the > flagpoles off to joust with, trying to tip them and ride on 2 wheels, > nearly hitting a couple of toddlers, and being general hoodlums. > > I blame the recumbent trikes. :) > I blame the parents for not using more effective birth control methods. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 12 Oct 2007 13:36:35 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again In article <1192209503.395179.13360@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net > wrote: > On Oct 12, 9:26 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Clive George wrote: > > > > > Bob wrote: > > > > > > The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if > > > > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > > > > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > > > > effective marketing tool. > > > > > KMX Karts. > > > > Banana Bike and derivatives: > > > > http://trailmate.com/productMiniPeel.cfm > > > > Chalo > > Sweet jebus I hate those things. > > I was on tour this summer, and after pulling a hamstring, took a rest > day at a KOA. They had a whole bunch of Trailmate Banana Peels and Low > Riders (both recumbent trikes) for rent. There were a bunch of 12-14 > year olds riding like maniacs through the campground, pulling the > flagpoles off to joust with, trying to tip them and ride on 2 wheels, > nearly hitting a couple of toddlers, and being general hoodlums. > > I blame the recumbent trikes. :) No demolition derby? -- Michael Press   Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:36:54 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again Clive George wrote: > > Bob wrote: > > > > The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if > > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > > effective marketing tool. > > KMX Karts. Banana Bike and derivatives: http://trailmate.com/productMiniPeel.cfm Chalo   Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:36:41 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again Bob wrote: > > BTW, if > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > effective marketing tool. Big Wheels were recumbents, and they did not succeed in damaging the impressionable young minds of my generation badly enough to make us want 'bents later. Chalo   Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:26:42 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again Clive George wrote: > > Bob wrote: > > > > The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if > > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > > effective marketing tool. > > KMX Karts. Banana Bike and derivatives: http://trailmate.com/productMiniPeel.cfm Chalo   Date: 12 Oct 2007 04:22:13 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom Sherman wrote: > > Since the arc > distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is > much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a > level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an > overloaded cargo bicycle. Normal bikes could be made a lot more "responsive" in the same way as a lowracer 'bent (that is, much less stable and a lot quicker to fall over), but they are designed the way they are for reasons that have been well understood for over 100 years. For you to suggest that the lack of stability in a late 20th/early 21st century 'bent design is some kind of virtue is pretty inventive, but not very compelling. My experience with choppers, art bikes, and experimental bikes has shown me that you can get used to the handling qualities of just about any misbegotten contraption with round wheels on it. The nice thing about normal bicycles is that generations of successive design refinements have winnowed out the troublesome designs and narrowed the field down to just the machines that _don't_ take a lot of getting used to. 'Bents are stuck in the 19th century in that regard, and not even the late 19th century. The 'bent equivalent of the safety bicycle, the design that overtakes all others because of its general superiority, has not yet been developed. I think there are strong reasons to suggest that it _can't_ be developed because of the intrinsic dynamic challenges of 'bents. A successful 'bent motorcycle has not yet been made for many of the same reasons. But who knows? Just like pigs could eventually evolve wings, someone could one day design a stable, tractable, multi-surface, no-handable 'bent bike. Chalo     Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:13:36 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > Tom Sherman wrote: >> Since the arc >> distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is >> much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a >> level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an >> overloaded cargo bicycle. > > Normal bikes could be made a lot more "responsive" in the same way as > a lowracer 'bent (that is, much less stable and a lot quicker to fall > over), but they are designed the way they are for reasons that have > been well understood for over 100 years. For you to suggest that the > lack of stability in a late 20th/early 21st century 'bent design is > some kind of virtue is pretty inventive, but not very compelling. Then why do I find riding this type of bicycle more fun than any other type? Maybe Chalo's problem with recumbent handling is too many preconceived notions about how they should handle? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!       Date: 13 Oct 2007 20:01:02 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike >> Tom Sherman wrote: >>> Since the arc >>> distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is >>> much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a >>> level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an >>> overloaded cargo bicycle. > Chalo Colina wrote: >> Normal bikes could be made a lot more "responsive" in the same way as >> a lowracer 'bent (that is, much less stable and a lot quicker to fall >> over), but they are designed the way they are for reasons that have >> been well understood for over 100 years. For you to suggest that the >> lack of stability in a late 20th/early 21st century 'bent design is >> some kind of virtue is pretty inventive, but not very compelling. Tom Sherman wrote: > Then why do I find riding this type of bicycle more fun than any other > type? > Maybe Chalo's problem with recumbent handling is too many preconceived > notions about how they should handle? No one is wrong about his own opinion. Proselytizing opens a broader discussion. It's a long stretch from, "I like it" to "You oughta..." -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 13 Oct 2007 20:21:19 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Andrew Muzi mused: >>> Tom Sherman wrote: >>>> Since the arc >>>> distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is >>>> much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a >>>> level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an >>>> overloaded cargo bicycle. > >> Chalo Colina wrote: >>> Normal bikes could be made a lot more "responsive" in the same way as >>> a lowracer 'bent (that is, much less stable and a lot quicker to fall >>> over), but they are designed the way they are for reasons that have >>> been well understood for over 100 years. For you to suggest that the >>> lack of stability in a late 20th/early 21st century 'bent design is >>> some kind of virtue is pretty inventive, but not very compelling. > > Tom Sherman wrote: >> Then why do I find riding this type of bicycle more fun than any other >> type? >> Maybe Chalo's problem with recumbent handling is too many preconceived >> notions about how they should handle? > > No one is wrong about his own opinion. Proselytizing opens a broader > discussion. It's a long stretch from, "I like it" to "You oughta..." butbutbut, if people are suffering discomfort from riding, they will NOT like it (save for the odd masochist). Claiming these people do not exist, that ALL problems can be cured by proper fitting, or that these people should give up cycling for another activity is NOT useful [1], unless one's goal is to make cycling an exclusive club for the "worthy". [1] All attitudes expressed on these newsgroups. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 12 Oct 2007 04:59:03 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <1192162933.420499.216230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > Tom Sherman wrote: > > > > Since the arc > > distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is > > much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a > > level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an > > overloaded cargo bicycle. > > Normal bikes could be made a lot more "responsive" in the same way as > a lowracer 'bent (that is, much less stable and a lot quicker to fall > over), but they are designed the way they are for reasons that have > been well understood for over 100 years. For you to suggest that the > lack of stability in a late 20th/early 21st century 'bent design is > some kind of virtue is pretty inventive, but not very compelling. > > My experience with choppers, art bikes, and experimental bikes has > shown me that you can get used to the handling qualities of just about > any misbegotten contraption with round wheels on it. The nice thing > about normal bicycles is that generations of successive design > refinements have winnowed out the troublesome designs and narrowed the > field down to just the machines that _don't_ take a lot of getting > used to. > > 'Bents are stuck in the 19th century in that regard, and not even the > late 19th century. The 'bent equivalent of the safety bicycle, the > design that overtakes all others because of its general superiority, > has not yet been developed. I think there are strong reasons to > suggest that it _can't_ be developed because of the intrinsic dynamic > challenges of 'bents. A successful 'bent motorcycle has not yet been > made for many of the same reasons. But who knows? Just like pigs > could eventually evolve wings, someone could one day design a stable, > tractable, multi-surface, no-handable 'bent bike. In fairness to the argument, I think the reason that motorcycles don't thrive in recumbent form (and if the latest variations on the Yamaha Majest/Piaggio Hexagon/choose your 650cc scooter aren't feet-forward semi-bent motorcycles, I'm not sure what would be) is because ground clearance for cornering is a substantial issue. The Eco Egg (or whatever that K1000 with a long body and a full-enclosure body was called) was a sorta fully-faired recumbent. Here's a typical recent variation: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/486/ Note that these bikes don't catch on because they're heavy, complex, wildly expensive, and longer than a lot of small cars. Did I mention the cost? It's a pretty big deal. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing   Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:11:30 From: Bob Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Oct 11, 6:02 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general > use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand) > because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are > external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more > maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they > cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push > them on customers. > External gearing doesn't outsell internal gear hubs because it costs less to manufacture. External outsells internal because it accomplishes the same task as the internal geared hub at a fraction of the price to the buyer. That is hardly a case of bike companies "pushing" an externally geared bike on consumers, more like a case of giving consumers what they want. The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very effective marketing tool. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:44:25 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again Cyclist Bob Hunt wrote: > On Oct 11, 6:02 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >> People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general >> use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand) >> because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are >> external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more >> maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they >> cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push >> them on customers. >> > > External gearing doesn't outsell internal gear hubs because it costs > less to manufacture. External outsells internal because it > accomplishes the same task as the internal geared hub at a fraction of > the price to the buyer.... While certainly true in the US, has this always been the case, and is it true worldwide? There are an awful lot of "roadster" type bicycles with SA, Sachs and Shimano 3-speed hubs out there. The European commuter market appears to prefer internally geared hubs (does anyone have actual sales figures)? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 12 Oct 2007 15:37:39 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again "Bob" <hunrobe@aol.com > wrote in message news:1192158690.336665.275370@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if > one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the > market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very > effective marketing tool. KMX Karts. cheers, clive     Date: 12 Oct 2007 13:27:34 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:11:30 -0700, Bob wrote: > External gearing doesn't outsell internal gear hubs because it costs > less to manufacture. External outsells internal because it > accomplishes the same task as the internal geared hub at a fraction of > the price to the buyer. That is hardly a case of bike companies > "pushing" an externally geared bike on consumers Sure they're pushing them. By offering them to bike shops at a far lower wholesale price, the conspiracist bastards :-)   Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:36:36 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 11, 7:19 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: > > > ... > > 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) > > brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get > > recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for > > short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can > > think of for that are: > > A) you're losing your nerve or > > B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. > > Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention > [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs > some work. > > [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less > about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn > business. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore! IOW, your annoyance at unwelcome questions and comments outweighs the horrible pain and agonizing suffering you claim a DF bike inflicts upon you. Either: A) you are a masochist or B) the pain really ain't all that bad. If A is true you'd never consider the increased comfort of a 'bent as being a plus and certainly wouldn't be flogging it so stubbornly. If B is true you've drastically overstated any comfort advantage. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:39:45 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Bob Hunt, Upright Cyclist, wrote: > On Oct 11, 7:19 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: >> >>> ... >>> 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) >>> brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get >>> recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for >>> short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can >>> think of for that are: >>> A) you're losing your nerve or >>> B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. >> Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention >> [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs >> some work. >> >> [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less >> about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn >> business. >> > > IOW, your annoyance at unwelcome questions and comments outweighs the > horrible pain and agonizing suffering you claim a DF bike inflicts > upon you. Either: A) you are a masochist or B) the pain really ain't > all that bad. Pain is proportional to ride length. A one to two hour ride off-road or around town is not to bad, but a six hour century ride would be living hell. > If A is true you'd never consider the increased comfort of a 'bent as > being a plus and certainly wouldn't be flogging it so stubbornly. You are confusing me with Doug C., with your accusation of recumbent evangelism. I merely post corrections to mis-information when others bring up the subject. There is a difference. > If B is true you've drastically overstated any comfort advantage. See above. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 11 Oct 2007 07:12:07 From: Adam Kadlubek Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike > No-- it's simply bad business to sell things that self-respecting > folks have already demonstrated they will not buy. Or just simply because an average Joe does not even know that he can make such decision. And even if he knows, the price premium on even the most basic bents does not make them very tempting. > I thought 'bents were a neat idea until I tried one (Infinity LWB). > Then I thought they were a quirky and iconoclastic idea until I spent > a vacation on a BikeE (because it was the only sufficiently tall > rental bike I could find). Now I know for sure that they are just a > bad idea. A very bad idea. Well. I own a machine similar to this one: http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/misc/nocom/nocomside.jpg from the very same mfr, but abit more domesticated. The first few hours were an absolute horror. But after I got the reflexes it turned to be very pleasant machine. Usually the lower you go, the more quirky the bike becomes at low speed, and that requires a new set of reflexes. Nihil novi really. > Though the BikeE was equipped with far more gear range than any bike I > owned at the time, it was a horrible ordeal to climb modest slopes > with, zigzagging and stalling where I'd have been able to ride up well > enough on a one-speed. And slow! Even given a long straight flat > smooth piece of road, it was a strenuous chore to carry a fraction of > the speed I could easily have cruised at on one of my own bikes. My > wife was constantly outrunning me on her rental hybrid, which she had > never done before. Well, BikeE's are not speed machines, they are, well, slow and aimed for casual weekend rides. No wonder you were slow. Also - just like being a runner does not make you cyclist, riding alot of miles on an upright does not directly translate to being fast on a bent. That being said - Currently there is ~15% penalty across the board on average speed on the NoCom against my usual TT bike. My TT has racked about 17000 miles now, NoCom has seen ~100. > I don't have to buy a 'bent to have my informed opinions of them. In > fact, it is only my experience with 'bents that insures I will never > pay to own one! (I would certainly take a free one for the purpose of > springing practical jokes on my friends.) Informed opinion comes from knowing strengths and weaknesses of a given bicycle, being it anything from a beaten city bike through carbon TT bikes up to hand-made recumbents. You cannot make an opinion of an ultra-lowracer by drawing parallels to a BikeE. That being said - NoCom is bound to become my long distance ride, FS MTB will remain my off road beater and TT bike will be used for my usual 10mile TT every other day. And of course city bike will remain city bike. BTW - I can ride up to 140 miles on an upright without issues. And from that I can tell you that a bent and an upright are two completely different worlds when it comes to comfort. Regards. -- Adam Kadlubek     Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:37:55 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Adam Kadlubek wrote: > ... > Also - just like being a runner does not make you cyclist, riding alot > of miles on an upright does not directly translate to being fast on a > bent. > That being said - Currently there is ~15% penalty across the board on > average speed on the NoCom against my usual TT bike. My TT has racked > about 17000 miles now, NoCom has seen ~100. I know several people over 50 years old who have ridden sub 4-hour centuries on Velokraft NoCom's [1]. Put a power measuring crank and compare speeds at the same power input. [1] The Fastest Unfaired Bicycle in the Known Universe. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 11 Oct 2007 13:49:17 From: Subject: Re: Betamax All Over Again On Oct 11, 7:02 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > On Oct 11, 1:00 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > >> I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless > >> I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly. > > >> (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents, > >> but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm > >> doing the best I can here-) > > > You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible > > stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your > > discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to > > learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself. > > > In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter > > along. > > > Robert > > Sometimes the better concept does not win as you'd expect. > > People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general > use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand) > because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are > external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more > maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they > cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push > them on customers. > > Most non-bicycle enthusiasts don't even know that such a thing as a > 14-speed hub /exists/. So do they want one? Of course not, how could > they? They have never heard of one and have never seen one, and > most-certainly have never gotten a chance to test-ride one. And even if > they managed to do all those things, the price tag would still put the > thought out of most people's minds. > > ------- > > So how do you explain this phenomenon? > Is the Rohloff a market failure because it hasn't gained widespread > acceptance? And are people who pay $1500 for a Rohloff hub doing so > because they're too inept to understand how to work external gears, or > is a Rohloff a technically-better solution that only a small number of > people are willing to pay for? > ~ You evaluate designs in a very, very simplistic way! "People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful" is NOT definitive proof that Rohloffs are superior to conventional drive trains! It merely suggests that most purchasers approve of their own purchase - but you see that phenomenon any time a Chevy guy and a Ford guy drink beer at a bar. Some people think internal gear hubs are interesting mechanically. Some like the aesthetics. Some like the reduced maintenance. But many people prefer the lighter weight, higher torque capacity, gear-ratio customization, and (yes) conventionality of more conventional drive trains. We've all heard of "superior" unconventional designs that leave their owners with no maintenance parts when their manufacturers go belly up. The "early adopter" crowd doesn't care, but most people do. And finally, you seem to think that it's unjust to consider the price of a design when evaluating its benefits and detriments. That's just weird! For almost all consumers, price is certainly a consideration, and its often a very important one. Theoretical benefits as touted by a few dedicated early adopters do not necessarily validate an expensive design. If that were true, you'd be reading this on a NeXT workstation. Or watching Betamax. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 11 Oct 2007 13:27:43 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 11, 2:52 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > > Also--I greatly prefer the head-mounted rear-view mirrors, and I > distinctly recall that these didn't work well on my drop-bar bikes, > because mostly what the mirror showed me was my own shoulder. They work > great on the recumbents however. Also on the Fusion too. > ,,,,,,, > For that matter: I consider effective rear-view mirrors to be /critical/ > to safe riding, and I don't remember /any/ good solutions for drop-bar > road bikes. Helmet/eyeglass mirrors didn't work for the shoulder-view > reason, and handlebar/stalk mounted mirrors vibrated too much. There's > the one now that mounts centered on the frame behind the head tube, but > it requires you to take your vision off the road ahead--so by my > standards it fails also. Sheesh. Doug, you really reach to find _any_ way of promoting recumbents over uprights, no matter how implausible! Many of us cyclists use eyeglass mirrors or helmet mirrors. Just like our upright bikes and our conventional saddles, we do so because they DO work. You seem to have difficulty with all three. The best that can be said about that is that they don't seem to work for _you_. In the case of the eyeglass mirror, as with a saddle, it's likely a selection or adjustment problem that you can be taught to solve. It's not a fundamental problem with the design of the equipment. And I don't consider a mirror to be "critical" for safe riding anyway. Convenient? Yes. But if I lost my mirror halfway through a ride, I certainly wouldn't call a cab! Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:07:01 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski [1] wrote: > On Oct 11, 2:52 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> >> Also--I greatly prefer the head-mounted rear-view mirrors, and I >> distinctly recall that these didn't work well on my drop-bar bikes, >> because mostly what the mirror showed me was my own shoulder. They work >> great on the recumbents however. Also on the Fusion too. >> ,,,,,,, >> For that matter: I consider effective rear-view mirrors to be /critical/ >> to safe riding, and I don't remember /any/ good solutions for drop-bar >> road bikes. Helmet/eyeglass mirrors didn't work for the shoulder-view >> reason, and handlebar/stalk mounted mirrors vibrated too much. There's >> the one now that mounts centered on the frame behind the head tube, but >> it requires you to take your vision off the road ahead--so by my >> standards it fails also. > > Sheesh. Doug, you really reach to find _any_ way of promoting > recumbents over uprights, no matter how implausible! > > Many of us cyclists use eyeglass mirrors or helmet mirrors. Just like > our upright bikes and our conventional saddles, we do so because they > DO work. > > You seem to have difficulty with all three. The best that can be said > about that is that they don't seem to work for _you_. In the case of > the eyeglass mirror, as with a saddle, it's likely a selection or > adjustment problem that you can be taught to solve. It's not a > fundamental problem with the design of the equipment. > > And I don't consider a mirror to be "critical" for safe riding > anyway. Convenient? Yes. But if I lost my mirror halfway through a > ride, I certainly wouldn't call a cab! I agree with Jobst Brandt [2] about eyeglass/h*lm*t mounted mirrors. The inability to accurately determine the direction of objects to the rear makes their value minimal. On the other hand, the handlebar mounted mirrors on my flat bar recumbents are as useful as the side mirrors on automobiles. [1] When will these people fix their user names??? [2] <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/mirrors.html >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 11 Oct 2007 09:03:22 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15...@aol.com wrote: > > DougC wrote: > > > I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless > > I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly. > > > (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents, > > but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm > > doing the best I can here-) > > You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible > stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your > discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to > learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself. > > In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter > along. For some values of "market" and, I suppose, "sputter". Chalo   Date: 11 Oct 2007 09:01:18 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike DougC wrote: > > There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St > Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all, Coincidence? Conspiracy? No-- it's simply bad business to sell things that self-respecting folks have already demonstrated they will not buy. > I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't > argue with anyone who has already not bought one. I thought 'bents were a neat idea until I tried one (Infinity LWB). Then I thought they were a quirky and iconoclastic idea until I spent a vacation on a BikeE (because it was the only sufficiently tall rental bike I could find). Now I know for sure that they are just a bad idea. A very bad idea. I've ridden choppers, assembled from chunks of other bikes with a hacksaw and a hammer, that ride better and less treacherously than a BikeE. Even on the occasional stretch of smooth, unbroken pavement, where the likelihood of stopping the donut-sized front wheel dead in a small pothole was insignificant, the bastard was just waiting for a moment's lapse in my vigilance to corkscrew itself into the road, taking me with it. Though the BikeE was equipped with far more gear range than any bike I owned at the time, it was a horrible ordeal to climb modest slopes with, zigzagging and stalling where I'd have been able to ride up well enough on a one-speed. And slow! Even given a long straight flat smooth piece of road, it was a strenuous chore to carry a fraction of the speed I could easily have cruised at on one of my own bikes. My wife was constantly outrunning me on her rental hybrid, which she had never done before. I don't have to buy a 'bent to have my informed opinions of them. In fact, it is only my experience with 'bents that insures I will never pay to own one! (I would certainly take a free one for the purpose of springing practical jokes on my friends.) > The extra money in > their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent > the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the > garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale. The true test of these matters is to tape a single pea under the saddle shell of a normal bike. If a person can't ride it even a single mile without grievous discomfort, that proves beyond a doubt he is a Real Princess, and thus he must use a recumbent for his forays out from the castle. Chalo     Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:39:04 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > DougC wrote: >> There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St >> Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all, > > Coincidence? Conspiracy? > > No-- it's simply bad business to sell things that self-respecting > folks have already demonstrated they will not buy. > >> I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't >> argue with anyone who has already not bought one. > > I thought 'bents were a neat idea until I tried one (Infinity LWB). > Then I thought they were a quirky and iconoclastic idea until I spent > a vacation on a BikeE (because it was the only sufficiently tall > rental bike I could find). Now I know for sure that they are just a > bad idea. A very bad idea. > > I've ridden choppers, assembled from chunks of other bikes with a > hacksaw and a hammer, that ride better and less treacherously than a > BikeE. Even on the occasional stretch of smooth, unbroken pavement, > where the likelihood of stopping the donut-sized front wheel dead in a > small pothole was insignificant, the bastard was just waiting for a > moment's lapse in my vigilance to corkscrew itself into the road, > taking me with it. > > Though the BikeE was equipped with far more gear range than any bike I > owned at the time, it was a horrible ordeal to climb modest slopes > with, zigzagging and stalling where I'd have been able to ride up well > enough on a one-speed. And slow! Even given a long straight flat > smooth piece of road, it was a strenuous chore to carry a fraction of > the speed I could easily have cruised at on one of my own bikes. My > wife was constantly outrunning me on her rental hybrid, which she had > never done before. > > I don't have to buy a 'bent to have my informed opinions of them. In > fact, it is only my experience with 'bents that insures I will never > pay to own one! (I would certainly take a free one for the purpose of > springing practical jokes on my friends.) > >> The extra money in >> their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent >> the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the >> garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale. > > The true test of these matters is to tape a single pea under the > saddle shell of a normal bike. If a person can't ride it even a > single mile without grievous discomfort, that proves beyond a doubt he > is a Real Princess, and thus he must use a recumbent for his forays > out from the castle. Chalo's miserable experience appears to be almost (or) unique. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 11 Oct 2007 07:29:46 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 11, 1:00 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless > I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly. > > (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents, > but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm > doing the best I can here-) You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself. In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter along. Robert     Date: 11 Oct 2007 06:02:05 From: DougC Subject: Betamax All Over Again r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Oct 11, 1:00 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >> I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless >> I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly. >> >> (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents, >> but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm >> doing the best I can here-) > > You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible > stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your > discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to > learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself. > > In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter > along. > > Robert > Sometimes the better concept does not win as you'd expect. People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand) because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push them on customers. Most non-bicycle enthusiasts don't even know that such a thing as a 14-speed hub /exists/. So do they want one? Of course not, how could they? They have never heard of one and have never seen one, and most-certainly have never gotten a chance to test-ride one. And even if they managed to do all those things, the price tag would still put the thought out of most people's minds. ------- So how do you explain this phenomenon? Is the Rohloff a market failure because it hasn't gained widespread acceptance? And are people who pay $1500 for a Rohloff hub doing so because they're too inept to understand how to work external gears, or is a Rohloff a technically-better solution that only a small number of people are willing to pay for? ~   Date: 10 Oct 2007 19:12:24 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 10, 10:30 am, DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. > > Anyone that hauls their bike around on the back of their motor vehicle > to get to a club right has nothing to feel elitist about, no matter > how fast they ride it when they get there. > > Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is > fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how > much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the > groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts > with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees. > > After mama broke her neck skiing she hasn't been able to ride a bike > with drop bars, and hybrids have felt clunky to her. Her new Rans > CRANK forward Zenetic is just right. I think I may get one too. I'm > tired of not being able to pop the front wheel up over a curb. Ah yes, yet another person who knows what a *real* cyclist is... anyone that doesn't ride the way *they* do or for the same reasons. Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 10 Oct 2007 19:10:24 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 10, 9:31 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote: > In article <zN1Pi.78$KS3...@newsfe03.lga>, > > DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > > > > What is the benefit of being able to ride no-handed? If a typical casual > > (non-competitive) rider goes on a 30-mile ride, how many miles do you > > think they are riding no-handed? > > Not many. None of the riders I know no-hands for a break. They almost > always do it because they're changing jackets,* getting something > (usually a snack) out of a pocket, or just for a quick stretch. Well, sometimes when coasting downhill, I'll ride no-hands with my arms outstretched so I can pretend to be an eagle. But I'd never admit that in public! I've also ridden no-hands while playing a pennywhistle. So it's obviously handy in many ways! > > * No, I don't > recommend removing jackets no-handed on the fly as a normal bike skill. > But it's cool. Yes it is. Removing a jacket is easier than removing a rain cape, but I've done that many times, too. I just prefer to keep rolling. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 10 Oct 2007 18:58:40 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 10:25 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Officer Bob Hunt wrote: > > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > >> I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my > >> recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one > >> afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying). > > > Your paranthetical aside exactly reflects my own experiences with > > recumbents. I had a hard time keeping my balance on them, especially > > those with below the seat steering. The ride just felt too darned > > weird. I'm certain with time those problems would have resolved > > themselves but for me it was a case of why bother? The only advantage > > recumbents offered to me was the possibility I could hit higher speeds > > on a level surface. Factored against the disadvantages- a small loss > > in manueverabilty, needing more storage space, and price among others- > > I decided to just pedal my uprights a little harder. > > It's fine if you want to ride 'bents and extol their virtues. Just > > don't paint them as the solution to the imaginary problem of the > > horrible pain and agonizing suffering uprights inflict on their users. > > Yet another example of someone fortunate not to suffer comfort problems > on an upright, speaking for those who do. > > Those who find uprights uncomfortable mostly give cycling shortly after > trying - why are there so many older bicycles that have hardly been > used? A fortunate few brave the ridicule of the majority cycling > community and get recumbents or crank-forward uprights. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Allow me to respond to your comments in the order in which they appear. 1- I don't sign my posts as "Officer Bob Hunt" and would appreciate it if you would refrain from always including my occupation as part of my name. My job is what I do, not who I am. 2- I was speaking for myself and for the great majority of cyclists that don't experience the horrible pain and agonizing suffering you apparently do. 3- There are lots of older hardly used bicycles for the same reason there are a lot of hardly used exercise machines around. People bought them with the idea that they could lose weight, lower blood pressure, build muscle, get in shape, etcetera without exerting any effort and became discouraged when they learned otherwise. 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can think of for that are: A) you're losing your nerve or B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:19:57 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: > ... > 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) > brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get > recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for > short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can > think of for that are: > A) you're losing your nerve or > B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs some work. [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn business. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!       Date: 12 Oct 2007 14:52:25 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <femejg$j87$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Bob Hunt, Non-recumbent Cyclist, wrote: > > ... > > 4- Since you apparently count yourself among the "fortunate few (that) > > brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get > > recumbents" why do you say you are considering getting an upright for > > short rides just a few posts upthread? The only explanations I can > > think of for that are: > > A) you're losing your nerve or > > B) the pain isn't quite as bad as you say. > > Or sometimes one wants to go out on a ride without attracting attention > [1]. Unfortunately, the "Somebody Else's Problem" field generator needs > some work. > > [1] I find all questions and comments from people who could care less > about me highly annoying. People should learn to mind their own damn > business. Minding other people's business is people's business. We are social creatures. Your job, should you wish to accept it, is to find a way to divert the attention without attracting more attention. Write a letter to Miss Manners. Black or blue-black ink on plain stationary. Seriously. -- Michael Press   Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:13:22 From: Wayne Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 10, 10:30 am, DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. > > Anyone that hauls their bike around on the back of their motor vehicle > to get to a club right has nothing to feel elitist about, no matter > how fast they ride it when they get there. > > Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is > fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how > much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the > groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts > with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees. > > After mama broke her neck skiing she hasn't been able to ride a bike > with drop bars, and hybrids have felt clunky to her. Her new Rans > CRANK forward Zenetic is just right. I think I may get one too. I'm > tired of not being able to pop the front wheel up over a curb. I ride an upright because like it. To me that is the ONLY reason needed to buy any type of bicycle. They are FUN. It appears to me that most people quit riding bikes for the same reason they quit jogging, jazzercising, even walking. They just don't want to spend the time/effort and they most certainly don not want to be tired and sweaty. Anyone who rides a two wheeled vehicle is a "real" bicyclist and I tend to include trikes and bikes with training wheels too. Wayne Anything that allows a couple to spend hours together and end up tired, sweaty, and satisfied is a good thing. ---- tandemist     Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:24:29 From: Tom Nakashima Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike "Wayne" <waynesulak@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1192040002.256012.151350@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > Anything that allows a couple to spend hours together and end up > tired, sweaty, and satisfied is a good thing. > ---- tandemist > Unless it's yardwork. -tom   Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:30:17 From: DennisTheBald Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. Anyone that hauls their bike around on the back of their motor vehicle to get to a club right has nothing to feel elitist about, no matter how fast they ride it when they get there. Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees. After mama broke her neck skiing she hasn't been able to ride a bike with drop bars, and hybrids have felt clunky to her. Her new Rans CRANK forward Zenetic is just right. I think I may get one too. I'm tired of not being able to pop the front wheel up over a curb.     Date: 11 Oct 2007 15:06:25 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:30:17 -0000, DennisTheBald wrote: > Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is > fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how > much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the > groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts > with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees. LOL. So tell me - since I commute and do my food shopping on a clunker, is it ok to do the roadie thing on my plastic wonder as well? Does an hour of commuting or shopping entitle me to a hour of "posing" while remaining a "real cyclist", or is the formula more complex? Is time spent at coffee shops after rides counted against me, even though I'm not actually on the bike? What about riding to and from group rides? Do I get credit for not racing, or does riding with racers make me just as bad?       Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:48:46 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <u1ru69mfihqq.v1kw9rkuashv$.dlg@40tude.net >, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:30:17 -0000, DennisTheBald wrote: > > > Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is > > fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how > > much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the > > groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts > > with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees. > > LOL. So tell me - since I commute and do my food shopping on a clunker, is > it ok to do the roadie thing on my plastic wonder as well? > > Does an hour of commuting or shopping entitle me to a hour of "posing" > while remaining a "real cyclist", or is the formula more complex? Is time > spent at coffee shops after rides counted against me, even though I'm not > actually on the bike? What about riding to and from group rides? Do I get > credit for not racing, or does riding with racers make me just as bad? Riding to a group ride is commuting. Full points. -- Michael Press   Date: 10 Oct 2007 13:51:09 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 10, 6:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > > I especially tend to mention them ... ... or rather, evangelize for recumbents... > ...when someone with "typical" saddle > issues gets the three standard answers: try random different saddles, > get a custom fitting, and my favorite failure--get used to the pain. > They don't actually /say/ to "just get used to the pain", what they say > is "maybe you just haven't tried riding on your saddle long enough", but > it's admitting that there possibly isn't any solution, and you should > just learn to tolerate the pain. What would you say if a new rider told you "I did my longest ride ever yesterday. I rode 15 miles, and for the first time ever, I climbed a hill! Now my thighs are sore. So I'm giving up bicycling because of the pain in my thighs." Personally, I've heard all but the last sentence. People generally understand that they must improve muscle tone to accommodate a new activity, be it cycling, tennis, bowling, jogging, or whatever. Smart people know that they may get a bit sore, but that the soreness is part of the strengthening process. The only real difference with a bike saddle is that one size does not fit all, so saddles must be chosen with a little care. Given a properly chosen upright saddle, one doesn't need to "tolerate the pain" any longer than a golfer or gardener needs to tolerate the pains from their hobbies. > The bicycle saddles of today don't > often look much different from each other, and often look quite similar > to many that were available literally 100 years ago. Yep. It's because the designs work. That's true of the wheels today, too. Does your recumbent feature square wheels? Or are you still using those archaic round ones, like the wheels of the 1800s? You retro-grouch! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 10 Oct 2007 07:11:49 From: Tom Nakashima Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1192024269.501614.191930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 10, 6:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > What would you say if a new rider told you "I did my longest ride ever > yesterday. I rode 15 miles, and for the first time ever, I climbed a > hill! Now my thighs are sore. So I'm giving up bicycling because of > the pain in my thighs." > - Frank Krygowski > I would encourage them get rid of those slime tubes, shift out of the 53/11 gear to a more reasonable riding gear, and not to worry about the mileage. -tom       Date: 10 Oct 2007 14:11:42 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:11:49 -0700, "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote: > ><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1192024269.501614.191930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 10, 6:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> >> What would you say if a new rider told you "I did my longest ride ever >> yesterday. I rode 15 miles, and for the first time ever, I climbed a >> hill! Now my thighs are sore. So I'm giving up bicycling because of >> the pain in my thighs." >> - Frank Krygowski >> > >I would encourage them get rid of those slime tubes, shift out of >the 53/11 gear to a more reasonable riding gear, and not to worry >about the mileage. >-tom Dear Tom, But I _tried_ that with the Fury Roadmaster! (Well, two out of three--48x14 and no Slime tubes. I had to worry about the mileage to measure whether I should give up bicycling.) Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 10 Oct 2007 13:23:34 From: Tom Nakashima Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message news:q3cqg39s159fudqirc87bad17ujlk2hofi@4ax.com... > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:11:49 -0700, "Tom Nakashima" > <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > >> >><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1192024269.501614.191930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> On Oct 10, 6:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >>> >>> What would you say if a new rider told you "I did my longest ride ever >>> yesterday. I rode 15 miles, and for the first time ever, I climbed a >>> hill! Now my thighs are sore. So I'm giving up bicycling because of >>> the pain in my thighs." >>> - Frank Krygowski >>> >> >>I would encourage them get rid of those slime tubes, shift out of >>the 53/11 gear to a more reasonable riding gear, and not to worry >>about the mileage. >>-tom > > Dear Tom, > > But I _tried_ that with the Fury Roadmaster! > > (Well, two out of three--48x14 and no Slime tubes. I had to worry > about the mileage to measure whether I should give up bicycling.) > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Ah you found me. ok, had my morning bourbon.... I love those Fury Roadmasters! -tom   Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:24:04 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike DougC wrote: > > Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat > available? I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is, generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally they _don't_ sell. It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know? Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by comparison! http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm Chalo     Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:30:11 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > ... > Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered > one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of > those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats > were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by > comparison! Both the Trek and Cannondale recumbents were significantly overpriced. For example, the HP Velotechnik Spirit was very similar to the Cannondale, but cost hundreds of dollars less similarly equipped. The Trek R200 was an odd-ball design. Any chance of success went away with the unfortunate death [1] of its "champion" within Trek. In both cases, most of the Trek and Cannondale dealers had no interest in selling recumbents, and only bought them because they had to. Similarly, most of the staff at these dealers had no knowledge or interest in recumbents. [1] Unrelated to riding a bicycle. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 11 Oct 2007 02:25:01 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo wrote: > DougC wrote: >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >> available? > > I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is, > generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally > they _don't_ sell. > > It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost > nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more > conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know? > > Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered > one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of > those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats > were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by > comparison! > > http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm > > Chalo > Most of the people who ask me about the bikes I have now didn't know that such a type of bicycle even existed. A few have seen them on TV or in print magazines, but even most of those people have no idea where to get one. There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all, and many people are reluctant to buy anything so expensive and unusual online, if online sales are even an option. And most of the people new to bicycling (who are most interested in comfort) are also the most price-conscious, and the cheapest recumbent in the US still costs about six times what the cheapest adult bikes do. The Trek and Cannondale ones were not very good examples--they were rather expensive even by recumbent standards, and were never widely available. Probably the best effort to date (in the US) was when BikeE was around, they got their bikes into a lot of regular bike shops--but once again, the $1100 price tag was tough to swallow when "normal" bikes could be had for $200. I test-rode a BikeE about 16 years ago and LOVED it, but the price was off-putting. I put up with normal road bikes for another ten years before buying a recumbent. Looking back, I should've bought the BikeE in the first place. I can ride a recumbent farther now and with less pain than I could ride an upright back then--and I was 16 years younger and ~100 lbs lighter back then. ------ I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't argue with anyone who has already not bought one. The extra money in their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale. And then on some warm spring day, they'll wander back into the bike shop, and the person working there will SWEAR that "bicycles overall are lots more comfortable now!"... ~       Date: 12 Oct 2007 13:44:35 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <VckPi.323$Z36.114@newsfe02.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Chalo wrote: > > DougC wrote: > >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat > >> available? > > > > I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is, > > generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally > > they _don't_ sell. > > > > It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost > > nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more > > conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know? > > > > Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered > > one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of > > those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats > > were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by > > comparison! > > > > http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm > > > > Chalo > > > > Most of the people who ask me about the bikes I have now didn't know > that such a type of bicycle even existed. A few have seen them on TV or > in print magazines, but even most of those people have no idea where to > get one. There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St > Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all, and many people > are reluctant to buy anything so expensive and unusual online, if online > sales are even an option. > > And most of the people new to bicycling (who are most interested in > comfort) are also the most price-conscious, and the cheapest recumbent > in the US still costs about six times what the cheapest adult bikes do. > > The Trek and Cannondale ones were not very good examples--they were > rather expensive even by recumbent standards, and were never widely > available. Probably the best effort to date (in the US) was when BikeE > was around, they got their bikes into a lot of regular bike shops--but > once again, the $1100 price tag was tough to swallow when "normal" bikes > could be had for $200. > > I test-rode a BikeE about 16 years ago and LOVED it, but the price was > off-putting. I put up with normal road bikes for another ten years > before buying a recumbent. Looking back, I should've bought the BikeE in > the first place. I can ride a recumbent farther now and with less pain > than I could ride an upright back then--and I was 16 years younger and > ~100 lbs lighter back then. > > ------ > > I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't > argue with anyone who has already not bought one. The extra money in > their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent > the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the > garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale. And > then on some warm spring day, they'll wander back into the bike shop, > and the person working there will SWEAR that "bicycles overall are lots > more comfortable now!"... > ~ The quotes around `normal' is a good touch. People who buy a bicycle because they think it will help them are deluding themselves, and the bicycle gathers dust. Some children get up on the bicycle for the first time, and immediately see the advantages. It offers an almost free ride. -- Michael Press     Date: 10 Oct 2007 14:23:56 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:24:04 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: >DougC wrote: >> >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >> available? > >I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is, >generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally >they _don't_ sell. > >It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost >nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more >conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know? > >Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered >one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of >those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats >were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by >comparison! > >http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm > >Chalo Dear Chalo, Despite a slight delay in the recumbent scheme for world domination, they are rolling inexorably toward glorious victory with ever-increasing sales! Highwheelers ruled from around 1875 to 1890. Safety bicycles appeared in 1885 and wiped out the highwheelers in 5 years. Recumbents appeared in 1896, about 111 years ago, and . . . http://www.bicycleman.com/history/history.htm Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 10 Oct 2007 09:18:26 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 12:23 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It > might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way > that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand > US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would > NOT try to ride a bicycle this way. Complete nonsense. That's how one rides a bike. I ride about 10000 miles each year plus a few thousand miles of singletrack trail on a rigid fork bike, I don't use bike shorts, and I suffer zero discomfort. I don't race. I simply distribute my weight over my hands, feet, and rear; over rough sections I unweight the saddle and absorb the bumps with my arms and legs -- nature's perfect suspension components. But yes -- If I tried to use my bike seat like a tiny chair to support my full weight at all times, then yes, there would be discomfort. If that is your idea of riding a bike, then by all means get a comically giant sprung saddle or ride a recumbent. You'll certainly need it. > What I would like to know is what idiotic charlatan came up with the > idea that "a bicycle saddle is not for sitting on". > > It's positively ignorant, and deserves to be called as such. It happens to be true. > From the earliest records of the safety bicycle there are accounts of > various types of ass-padding, as well as saddles using different kinds > of suspension. If sitting on a bicycle saddle is wrong, then lots of > people have been doing it wrong from the very start. Yes, lots of people have had the wrong idea about this and continue to. Witness the entire 'comfort bike' nightmare of people sitting bolt upright on giant padded seats. Comfort is not on the agenda there I'll tell you. And you are another example. I'll suggest again, probably in vain, that you try riding a bike properly before deciding it's inherently uncomfortable. Robert   Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:17:01 From: Gary Young Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:50:00 -0500, DougC wrote: > Paul Cassel wrote: >> >> I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles >> absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling >> frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to >> my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and >> hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as >> a comfort bike, I'd walk. >> ..... > > I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good > for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize > the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional > /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders > (who insist on sitting on their saddles...). > > It's my understanding that the Chinese manufacturers of these frames > (produced and sold under many different brands) are limited by the > tooling they have. The frame jigs have a built-in range of geometry and > size adjustability, and the current crop of comfort bikes like Townies > is the farthest they can go with what they have. The Giant Revive > required totally-custom tooling to manufacture its frame, and we see > that the cheapest model costs $700 USD. The cheapest RANS crank-forwards > are around $1000 USD, and they come equipped with pretty meek components. > ~ Are you suggesting that tooling costs are the reason foot-forward bikes aren't more popular? Do you have a source for that? I have to say I'm pretty skeptical. A frame jig is just a set of clamps to holds tubes at set angles. Remember the Schwinn fat-tired chopper that was out a few years ago? That had geometry about as laid back as possible and yet as I recall could be had for $200 or so. I think it's the lack of popularity of these bikes that makes them expensive, not the tooling costs.     Date: 10 Oct 2007 03:15:36 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Gary Young wrote: > > Are you suggesting that tooling costs are the reason foot-forward bikes > aren't more popular? Do you have a source for that? No. What I read online (from a non-authoritative source) is that the bikes like the Electra Townie are as radical as can be made without going to a custom frame manufacturing setup. Going to a custom frame tooling setup drastically adds to the price--as observed with the Giant Revive. > I have to say I'm > pretty skeptical. A frame jig is just a set of clamps to holds tubes at > set angles. Remember the Schwinn fat-tired chopper that was out a few > years ago? That had geometry about as laid back as possible and yet as I > recall could be had for $200 or so. I think it's the lack of popularity of > these bikes that makes them expensive, not the tooling costs. Yes--the kids Schwinn chopper was $197--but then again, the mighty Wal-Mart signed on to sell the Schwinn chopper bikes. Wal-Mart probably agreed to buy tens of thousands of them right off the bat, they don't do small deals. That instant volume probably did quite a bit to drive down the unit price. ~       Date: 11 Oct 2007 01:33:08 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <mS%Oi.72$KS3.66@newsfe03.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Gary Young wrote: > > > > Are you suggesting that tooling costs are the reason foot-forward bikes > > aren't more popular? Do you have a source for that? > > No. > What I read online (from a non-authoritative source) is that the bikes > like the Electra Townie are as radical as can be made without going to a > custom frame manufacturing setup. Going to a custom frame tooling setup > drastically adds to the price--as observed with the Giant Revive. > > > I have to say I'm > > pretty skeptical. A frame jig is just a set of clamps to holds tubes at > > set angles. Remember the Schwinn fat-tired chopper that was out a few > > years ago? That had geometry about as laid back as possible and yet as I > > recall could be had for $200 or so. I think it's the lack of popularity of > > these bikes that makes them expensive, not the tooling costs. > > Yes--the kids Schwinn chopper was $197--but then again, the mighty > Wal-Mart signed on to sell the Schwinn chopper bikes. Wal-Mart probably > agreed to buy tens of thousands of them right off the bat, they don't do > small deals. That instant volume probably did quite a bit to drive down > the unit price. > ~ Dear Doug: And if you had some eggs, you could have ham and eggs! If you had some ham, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 10 Oct 2007 02:57:10 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 10:27 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote: > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > > I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my > > recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one > > afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying). > > Your paranthetical aside exactly reflects my own experiences with > recumbents. I had a hard time keeping my balance on them, especially > those with below the seat steering. The ride just felt too darned > weird. I'm certain with time those problems would have resolved > themselves but for me it was a case of why bother? The only advantage > recumbents offered to me was the possibility I could hit higher speeds > on a level surface. Factored against the disadvantages- a small loss > in manueverabilty, needing more storage space, and price among others- > I decided to just pedal my uprights a little harder. > It's fine if you want to ride 'bents and extol their virtues. Just > don't paint them as the solution to the imaginary problem of the > horrible pain and agonizing suffering uprights inflict on their users. > I agree with this post perfectly. The only thing I need to add is: I first heard of recumbents in about 1974. I wrote a letter to Dan Henry (a then-famous cyclist who'd built one and written an article about it) asking about buying plans. His response? He said not to bother. He said it's like a jet airliner - fine for certain special uses, but not worth the trouble for general transportation. Still, I was very interested. I thought the variety of designs was interesting, and I appreciated the possibly improved aerodynamics. I sketched out designs for my own, and test rode many. (Note, I wasn't after more comfort, because despite the horror stories in this thread, once I learned how to get a saddle that fit me, I was comfortable on a regular bike.) But ultimately, I had to agree with Dan Henry. I can understand some people's love for recumbents, but for me and my riding, they're a solution to a non-problem. They bring more disadvantages than advantages. And, BTW, I've had several friends that bought or built recumbents, but abandoned them to return to uprights. Their thinking was exactly the same as mine. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:48:48 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:57:10 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >And, BTW, I've had several friends that bought or built recumbents, >but abandoned them to return to uprights. Their thinking was exactly >the same as mine. Given the _choice_ to return to diamond frame uprights there's some among us who would gladly do just that. Were it a choice to get bent or go nuts, I'd be looking at LWB OSS trikes with a fairing for the weather and maybe a motor for hills. -- zk     Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:20:01 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > ... > But ultimately, I had to agree with Dan Henry. I can understand some > people's love for recumbents, but for me and my riding, they're a > solution to a non-problem. They bring more disadvantages than > advantages.... The real problem with recumbents is stupid people who ask stupid questions. I do not mind legitimate educated questions, but want to be left the hell alone by everyone else [1]. That is the primary reason I am considering getting an upright bicycle for shorter rides. [1] Amusingly, something Jobst Brandt has complained about in the reverse context. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:27:55 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my > recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one > afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying). Your paranthetical aside exactly reflects my own experiences with recumbents. I had a hard time keeping my balance on them, especially those with below the seat steering. The ride just felt too darned weird. I'm certain with time those problems would have resolved themselves but for me it was a case of why bother? The only advantage recumbents offered to me was the possibility I could hit higher speeds on a level surface. Factored against the disadvantages- a small loss in manueverabilty, needing more storage space, and price among others- I decided to just pedal my uprights a little harder. It's fine if you want to ride 'bents and extol their virtues. Just don't paint them as the solution to the imaginary problem of the horrible pain and agonizing suffering uprights inflict on their users. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:25:18 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Officer Bob Hunt wrote: > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >> I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my >> recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one >> afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying). > > Your paranthetical aside exactly reflects my own experiences with > recumbents. I had a hard time keeping my balance on them, especially > those with below the seat steering. The ride just felt too darned > weird. I'm certain with time those problems would have resolved > themselves but for me it was a case of why bother? The only advantage > recumbents offered to me was the possibility I could hit higher speeds > on a level surface. Factored against the disadvantages- a small loss > in manueverabilty, needing more storage space, and price among others- > I decided to just pedal my uprights a little harder. > It's fine if you want to ride 'bents and extol their virtues. Just > don't paint them as the solution to the imaginary problem of the > horrible pain and agonizing suffering uprights inflict on their users. Yet another example of someone fortunate not to suffer comfort problems on an upright, speaking for those who do. Those who find uprights uncomfortable mostly give cycling shortly after trying - why are there so many older bicycles that have hardly been used? A fortunate few brave the ridicule of the majority cycling community and get recumbents or crank-forward uprights. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:05:18 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 1:23 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It > might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way > that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand > US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would > NOT try to ride a bicycle this way. You'd lose such a bet. Look around at the cyclists you see everyday. Unless they are on a cruiser bike or a recumbent cycle, that is *exactly* how they ride. Hey, maybe that explains why 'bents have captured just 3% of the market! ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 09 Oct 2007 18:56:59 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 11:00 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating" > > pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very > > rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even > > if it's a bad decision. > > I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only > a few miles. I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me > $115 and also were very tight. In my case, the pants look ok but many > newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass. > This was NOT a fun time. > > When I took a friend down to REI to buy a bike (her choice of stores) > she ended up with a decent bike. I insisted she buy bicycle pants. She > wouldn't come out of the dressing room with them. Instead, she insisted > I come in. She didn't buy them. She gave up bicycling due to comfort > issues in a few weeks of earnest trying. > > Time and again adults starting out feel the same. Why do you think > newbies are sold 'comfort' bikes - because they find some comfort in > standard bikes? Of course not. > > If people in the bike community want to spread the practice they need to > understand that few newbies can sit a bike even for a mile. Many are fat > or think they'll be laughed at in lycra so need to ride in street > clothes or other concealment clothes. > > That's a fact of the newbie. > > -paul I think you're overstating things a bit. Except for people with severe physical problems, the kinds of problems that make even activities like walking or standing painful or difficult, I've never met anyone that can't "sit a bike for even a mile". OTOH, I've met lots of people that won't wear lycra shorts because they were afraid of what people might say. Outside of suggesting MTB shorts, nothing can be done about that. Personally, I don't care what others may think of my choice in clothing. I dress to suit myself, not some stranger that may catch a glimpse of me as I ride by. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 09 Oct 2007 21:48:33 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:59 -0700, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com > concluded: > Personally, I don't care what others may think of my choice in >clothing. I dress to suit myself, not some stranger that may catch a >glimpse of me as I ride by. Bob, we all know you wear full kit and look hot in spandex. (for a man your age) I, on the other hand, prefer to have cagers stare, or do a double-take, when I ride by. You cant arguably "not see", dayglo fluorescent hot-pink under most common lighting situations. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I like/love your helmet/hat", I'd be riding carbon fibre Cervelos in the rain. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert_waltz/495067428/ > Dress to be seen or you might as well ride naked and get lots of attention, maybe even some free time to ponder a career change. -- zk       Date: 10 Oct 2007 00:13:25 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Zoot Katz wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:59 -0700, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> concluded: > >> Personally, I don't care what others may think of my choice in >> clothing. I dress to suit myself, not some stranger that may catch a >> glimpse of me as I ride by. > > Bob, we all know you wear full kit and look hot in spandex. (for a > man your age) > > I, on the other hand, prefer to have cagers stare, or do a > double-take, when I ride by. You cant arguably "not see", dayglo > fluorescent hot-pink under most common lighting situations.... Does that attract as much attention as the dinosaur suit? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!         Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:48:49 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:13:25 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: >Zoot Katz wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:59 -0700, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> concluded: >> >>> Personally, I don't care what others may think of my choice in >>> clothing. I dress to suit myself, not some stranger that may catch a >>> glimpse of me as I ride by. >> >> Bob, we all know you wear full kit and look hot in spandex. (for a >> man your age) >> >> I, on the other hand, prefer to have cagers stare, or do a >> double-take, when I ride by. You cant arguably "not see", dayglo >> fluorescent hot-pink under most common lighting situations.... > >Does that attract as much attention as the dinosaur suit? The G.E. kettle pot is a close second to doing dino. People stop to take my picture. The Xtracycle gets more looks than most choppers that outnumber recumbent when it comes to "pedal forward" bikes. A few of the pedal-forward cruiser designs can be pedalled standing. The Xtracycle can be pedalled from the deck for a "pedal forward" position. A back brace can increase your output but I suspect that's what broke my leg in a crash. -- zk   Date: 09 Oct 2007 11:34:19 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating" > > pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very > > rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even > > if it's a bad decision. > > I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only > a few miles. Really? "Enormous" pain? Comparable to what - a hangnail, or bumping your elbow on a doorway, or a terrible toothache, or loss of a limb? And after how many miles? My first cheap ten speed (in 1972) came from the discount store with a no-padding, hard plastic saddle. Even that didn't cause "enormous" pain. Yes, it was uncomfortable - and in the tiny rural town where I then lived, nobody could tell me what to do about it, and there was very little information available. But if there had been a bike shop in town, I imagine a competent proprietor could have helped me choose a decent saddle. It _should_ be different now. There's a lot more knowledge, and it's easier to access. Competent shops (and other sources of advice) are much easier to locate. > I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me > $115 and also were very tight. Interesting. I have never spent _near_ that much on a pair of cycling shorts. > In my case, the pants look ok but many > newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass. > This was NOT a fun time. I wonder if you're still on a saddle which doesn't match your riding style, or your personal dimensions. > ...Time and again adults starting out feel the same. Why do you think > newbies are sold 'comfort' bikes - because they find some comfort in > standard bikes? Of course not. Personally, I think most people who buy them don't need "comfort bikes." Yes, they _think_ they do, but that's an example of advertising taking advantage of people's misconceptions. A woman I know recently asked me for a little advice on buying a bike. (Actually, her husband suggested she ask me. I think she was humoring him.) She's very strong-willed, and as it turns out, ignored the advice my wife and I gave her. For example, she remains convinced that nobody but a technical expert can learn to shift gears, so she got a one-speed. She knows that leaning forward at all will make a person's back sore, so her bike has handlebars that sweep far back and keep her bolt upright. She didn't want to spend a lot of money, so she got it at a discount store. Yes, it's got a nice, wide, tractor-style saddle. Which is fine for her two-mile rides at 8 mph. Is she happy with her bike? As she puts it, all she wants to do is ride a mile up the road and back, so she says she's happy. Yet she almost never rides at all, and she thinks we're masochists for riding, say, 20 miles at a 14 mph pace. In my view, she's missing a lot, largely by catering to her preconceptions and ignoring my wife's and my advice. It's like a person who listens to a 2" AM transistor radio, and doesn't understand why some people really love good music. By contrast, the previous guy who consulted with me on bikes ended up (on my advice) rejecting the "comfort bike" he had chosen from a manufacturer's catalog. He bought a non-suspended mountain bike with a moderately upright position from a bike shop, and he traded out the knobbies for smooth road tires. He absolutely loved the bike and rode it up to and over 30 miles - until it was recently stolen. Now he's on a 1980s drop bar road bike that was salvaged from someone's trash, in perfect shape, and he likes this bike even better, for the much improved rolling resistance and speed. > > If people in the bike community want to spread the practice they need to > understand that few newbies can sit a bike even for a mile. In my experience, that's just not true. Hell, I can remember leading the ten-year-olds in a girl scout troop and the novice mommy chaperones on a seven mile ride with no complaints at all. Not only did they not complain, they felt proud of their "amazing" accomplishment! I did the same for members of a college ecology class a couple years ago, to demonstrate transportational biking. For some people, there may be difficulties that need addressed, like how to shift gears, or how to adjust the bike to fit properly. Or how to choose a decent saddle. But the difficulties don't need to be exaggerated. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:12:49 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net> > wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating" >>> pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very >>> rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even >>> if it's a bad decision. >> I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only >> a few miles. > > Really? "Enormous" pain? Comparable to what - a hangnail, or bumping > your elbow on a doorway, or a terrible toothache, or loss of a limb?... For me, upright saddle pain was bad enough that it took ALL the enjoyment out of the ride. My worst case of "recumbent butt" was so mild it was barely distracting. Has anyone ever noticed that active cyclists (such as those that participate in Usenet groups, club rides, commuters, etc.) are a BIASED (statically speaking) group when it comes to evaluating comfort? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 09 Oct 2007 15:56:52 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 12:00 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net> > > > Really? "Enormous" pain? Comparable to what - a hangnail, or bumping > your elbow on a doorway, or a terrible toothache, or loss of a limb? > And after how many miles? Started after 3 miles. Max range 5 miles. Pain was about a toothace level. Wasn't really the saddle. A very dishonest dealer sold me a wholly unsuitable bike. Wrong size and it even had sew ups which confused me when I bought clincher tires to replace the two flat tires I had gotten in those 5 miles. This was only a few years ago. I ended up selling the bike back to the same dealer for an $800 loss. I swore off bicycles then. This was only 8 years ago, but the expensive bike was 1970's vintage. > > >> I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me >> $115 and also were very tight. > > Interesting. I have never spent _near_ that much on a pair of cycling > shorts. Having the memory of that first bike made the $115 look cheap. > >> In my case, the pants look ok but many >> newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass. >> This was NOT a fun time. > > I wonder if you're still on a saddle which doesn't match your riding > style, or your personal dimensions. I didn't say I was in pain now. My bikes fit fine and I am lucky in saddles. > > > For some people, there may be difficulties that need addressed, like > how to shift gears, or how to adjust the bike to fit properly. Or how > to choose a decent saddle. But the difficulties don't need to be > exaggerated. > OK, so our experiences differ enormously. I have never met a person who wasn't riding who could use a single speed as in the example you posted which I snipped. The only person I ever knew who didn't take to shifting was my daughter who never seemed to get the front / rear shifting right. So I got her some sort of urban bike used which has only a rear shifter. She's in very good shape and also strong so actually she has more gears than she needs. She could use a single successfully. Of the three women I know who wanted to ride to slim down / get in shape, all of them were fitted by competent shops. Two got comfort bikes and one a standard. All of them quit riding shortly due to discomfort. -paul       Date: 09 Oct 2007 19:22:32 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:56:52 -0600, Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote: >Of the three women I know who wanted to ride to slim down / get in >shape, all of them were fitted by competent shops. Two got comfort bikes >and one a standard. All of them quit riding shortly due to discomfort. It was probably their flabby gluteus starting to tighten up, or maybe their nether-regions starting to wake-up, that caused the discomfort And let's face it, some body types aren't meant for spandex. Many people are discouraged from cycling when they find out it takes effort. Not much effort once conditioned but even a flat-land novice can be thwarted by constant head winds. If the spirit your inner ten-year old isn't rekindled by the bike, or it is subsequently smothered by your preconceived ideas of adult decorum, then bicycling won't interest you until it's the socially acceptable way to get from point A to a nearby point B. I don't believe bicycling is the best way to lose weight considering that it's more thermodynamically efficient than walking. They probably noticed greater weight loss drinking diuretics and popping pills and figured for the immediate numeric results. Their friends probably don't ride so riding was a "work out" with all the motivation and preparation that entails. Had they been able to think a bit, they may have figured out ways to incorporate bicycling into their lives rather than as a leisure activity that might cause them to sweat, ache and eat bugs. I'd be interested to see if their bums hurt after a Spinning (tm) session with their girlfriends and chai soy lattes. -- zk         Date: 10 Oct 2007 03:21:01 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Zoot Katz wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:56:52 -0600, Paul Cassel > <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote: > >> Of the three women I know who wanted to ride to slim down / get in >> shape, all of them were fitted by competent shops. Two got comfort bikes >> and one a standard. All of them quit riding shortly due to discomfort. > > It was probably their flabby gluteus starting to tighten up, or maybe > their nether-regions starting to wake-up, that caused the discomfort > > And let's face it, some body types aren't meant for spandex. > > Many people are discouraged from cycling when they find out it takes > effort. Not much effort once conditioned but even a flat-land novice > can be thwarted by constant head winds. > > If the spirit your inner ten-year old isn't rekindled by the bike, or > it is subsequently smothered by your preconceived ideas of adult > decorum, then bicycling won't interest you until it's the socially > acceptable way to get from point A to a nearby point B. > > I don't believe bicycling is the best way to lose weight considering > that it's more thermodynamically efficient than walking. They > probably noticed greater weight loss drinking diuretics and popping > pills and figured for the immediate numeric results. > > Their friends probably don't ride so riding was a "work out" with all > the motivation and preparation that entails. Had they been able to > think a bit, they may have figured out ways to incorporate bicycling > into their lives rather than as a leisure activity that might cause > them to sweat, ache and eat bugs. > > I'd be interested to see if their bums hurt after a Spinning (tm) > session with their girlfriends and chai soy lattes. And once again we see demonstrated, derision of anyone who doesn't buy into the "elitist road cycling model". ~   Date: 09 Oct 2007 09:08:02 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 4:51 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting. > > Who started this foolishness? > I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing > under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon". > It's absolute idiocy. > > I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world > riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate > differently. Your lack of understanding of how a bicycle seat should be used is likely the reason behind any lack of comfort you feel on upright bicycles. The weight of the rider should properly be distributed trhough the hands, feet, and rear, not just on the rear as many people seem to think. It's not a tiny chair that you're supposed to sit fully upon constantly with your full weight. It is closer to the truth to say that the seat is something on which the rider props him or herself up while standing on the pedals. Furthermore the rider should be light enough on the saddle to change positions subtly and very often. Give it a try. Robert     Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:23:39 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15757@aol.com wrote: > > Your lack of understanding of how a bicycle seat should be used is > likely the reason behind any lack of comfort you feel on upright > bicycles. The weight of the rider should properly be distributed > trhough the hands, feet, and rear, not just on the rear as many people > seem to think. It's not a tiny chair that you're supposed to sit fully > upon constantly with your full weight. It is closer to the truth to > say that the seat is something on which the rider props him or herself > up while standing on the pedals. Furthermore the rider should be light > enough on the saddle to change positions subtly and very often. > > Give it a try. > > Robert > It sounds almost like you /know/ of the discomfort problem, and are trying to explain ways of dealing with it. Other than switching to a bicycle type that doesn't /have/ the problem, of course. Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would NOT try to ride a bicycle this way. Additionally, it does not agree with current market offerings observed: the less weight placed on the seat, then the less reason for saddle springs (Brooks) and even LESS reason to be picky about saddles than about recumbent seats. And yet--most recumbents still only come with ONE seat that cannot easily be changed, and you place your full weight on a recumbent seat. If upright bikes need an assortment of several hundred different seats to choose from, then recumbents should need many more than that--and there's probably less than ten recumbent seat types being made today, not counting ones specially built for esoteric models like velokraft nocoms. ------ What I would like to know is what idiotic charlatan came up with the idea that "a bicycle saddle is not for sitting on". It's positively ignorant, and deserves to be called as such. From the earliest records of the safety bicycle there are accounts of various types of ass-padding, as well as saddles using different kinds of suspension. If sitting on a bicycle saddle is wrong, then lots of people have been doing it wrong from the very start. ~       Date: 10 Oct 2007 08:47:23 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:23:39 -0500, DougC wrote: > Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It > might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way > that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand > US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would > NOT try to ride a bicycle this way. You make it sounds as though non-pros never push hard on the pedals - that we're divided into pros and old ladies spinning along in the lowest available gear! If you put any real effort into pedalling, you /will/ reduce the average pressure your arse puts on the saddle. It's inevitable. > Additionally, it does not agree with current market offerings observed: > the less weight placed on the seat, then the less reason for saddle > springs (Brooks) and even LESS reason to be picky about saddles than > about recumbent seats. And yet--most recumbents still only come with ONE > seat that cannot easily be changed, and you place your full weight on a > recumbent seat. In fact, you surely place /more/ than your full weight on the seat, considering the horizontal component of force, because you're bracing yourself against its back to push the pedals. > If upright bikes need an assortment of several hundred > different seats to choose from You're wildly overstating the problem, of course. Of the dozens of people I ride with, the vast majority are happy with the saddle which came with their bike, and when they wear out, buy replacements based on weight, price and/or what their friends bought, and are perfectly happy with them. I can think of only a couple of cases where they changed due to discomfort.         Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:34:11 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:23:39 -0500, DougC wrote: > >> Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It >> might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way >> that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand >> US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would >> NOT try to ride a bicycle this way. > > You make it sounds as though non-pros never push hard on the pedals - > that we're divided into pros and old ladies spinning along in the lowest > available gear! If you put any real effort into pedalling, you /will/ > reduce the average pressure your arse puts on the saddle. It's inevitable. > >> Additionally, it does not agree with current market offerings observed: >> the less weight placed on the seat, then the less reason for saddle >> springs (Brooks) and even LESS reason to be picky about saddles than >> about recumbent seats. And yet--most recumbents still only come with ONE >> seat that cannot easily be changed, and you place your full weight on a >> recumbent seat. > > In fact, you surely place /more/ than your full weight on the seat, > considering the horizontal component of force, because you're bracing > yourself against its back to push the pedals. > >> If upright bikes need an assortment of several hundred >> different seats to choose from > > You're wildly overstating the problem, of course. Of the dozens of people I > ride with, the vast majority are happy with the saddle which came with > their bike, and when they wear out, buy replacements based on weight, price > and/or what their friends bought, and are perfectly happy with them. I can > think of only a couple of cases where they changed due to discomfort. Yes, THE PEOPLE YOU RIDE WITH. Do you ride with many people who have given up cycling due to discomfort? [rhetorical question] -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!           Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:05:26 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:34:11 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > Yes, THE PEOPLE YOU RIDE WITH. > Do you ride with many people who have given up cycling due to > discomfort? [rhetorical question] The few people I know who've given it up for that reason suffer from wrist, shoulder, neck or back problems, not an over-sensitive arse. It's quite likely that they'd be better off with recumbents.             Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:42:23 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:34:11 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > >> Yes, THE PEOPLE YOU RIDE WITH. > >> Do you ride with many people who have given up cycling due to >> discomfort? [rhetorical question] > > The few people I know who've given it up for that reason suffer from > wrist, shoulder, neck or back problems, not an over-sensitive arse. It's > quite likely that they'd be better off with recumbents. If a person can operate a motor vehicle without wrist, shoulder, neck or back problems, they can ride a standard design [1] recumbent [1] Reclines of less than 30° [2] from the horizontal [3] could cause neck problems for some. [2] 30ALT0176 for gene. [3] By convention, recumbent seat back angles are measured from the horizontal. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!               Date: 12 Oct 2007 13:41:42 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:42:23 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > If a person can operate a motor vehicle without wrist, shoulder, neck or > back problems, they can ride a standard design [1] recumbent OTOH, I know several people who can't drive for long periods due to carpal tunnel syndrome in their wrists.                 Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:46:43 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:42:23 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > >> If a person can operate a motor vehicle without wrist, shoulder, neck or >> back problems, they can ride a standard design [1] recumbent > > OTOH, I know several people who can't drive for long periods due to > carpal tunnel syndrome in their wrists. Can they ride upright bicycles for more than short distances without problems? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                 Date: 12 Oct 2007 04:56:57 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > > OTOH, I know several people who can't drive for long periods due to > carpal tunnel syndrome in their wrists. Then they can get a Cruzbike, fit it with a 7-speed hub w/coaster brake*, and ride no-handed pretty much all of the time. http://www.cruzbike.com/ *(-they might need a bogey-type idler made to do this, as Cruzbikes don't come with "horizontal" dropouts or offset-BB shells...) ~         Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:35:39 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Per Michael Warner: >You're wildly overstating the problem, of course. Of the dozens of people I >ride with, the vast majority are happy with the saddle which came with >their bike, and when they wear out, buy replacements based on weight, price >and/or what their friends bought, and are perfectly happy with them. I can >think of only a couple of cases where they changed due to discomfort. I'm one of the minority. Bell-curve outlier that I am.... For the life of me, I can't understand why somebody hasn't adopted the Brooks saddle construction and started producing semi-custom saddles with widths spaced maybe at 5mm intervals all the way up to 200mm or so. For starters, I'd think every Brooks devotee would have to have one... sized just for *them*.... With people paying what? $300? for a set of semi-custom ski boots where the payoff is just control and not comfort - and $250 for impulse-purchase sunglasses, I'd think the niche is there. -- PeteCresswell   Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:54:35 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 8, 8:44 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > > >http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785 > > >http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html > > "Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off > the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite > some time. > > The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be > excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few > hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle. I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating" pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even if it's a bad decision. For "excruciating," one might have to use a "Real Man" saddle like this http://sheldonbrown.com/real-man.html on a century ride about one week after beginning cycling. I think most people with saddle complaints are probably beginners, and are having problems because their salesperson (i.e. the kid at Wal- Mart) didn't explain that a saddle must fit the rider and the intended use. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:00:41 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating" > pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very > rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even > if it's a bad decision. > I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only a few miles. I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me $115 and also were very tight. In my case, the pants look ok but many newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass. This was NOT a fun time. When I took a friend down to REI to buy a bike (her choice of stores) she ended up with a decent bike. I insisted she buy bicycle pants. She wouldn't come out of the dressing room with them. Instead, she insisted I come in. She didn't buy them. She gave up bicycling due to comfort issues in a few weeks of earnest trying. Time and again adults starting out feel the same. Why do you think newbies are sold 'comfort' bikes - because they find some comfort in standard bikes? Of course not. If people in the bike community want to spread the practice they need to understand that few newbies can sit a bike even for a mile. Many are fat or think they'll be laughed at in lycra so need to ride in street clothes or other concealment clothes. That's a fact of the newbie. -paul   Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:47:59 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 7:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > > Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat > available? Hmm. I know I shouldn't say this, but the promise that recumbents "will sell" is, so far, largely unrealized. Maybe it's the lack of seat choices that have prevented them from becoming popular? ;-) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 Oct 2007 13:44:52 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 7:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >> available? > > Hmm. I know I shouldn't say this, but the promise that recumbents > "will sell" is, so far, largely unrealized. > > Maybe it's the lack of seat choices that have prevented them from > becoming popular? ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski > Recumbents offer the riding comfort that "average people" desire, but due to small production numbers, the lowest-priced recumbent still costs about ten times as much as the lowest-priced bicycles sold at Wal-Mart--so there is a price barrier that discourages the most-likely customers from buying. People who don't ride "normal" bicycles much or at all because they're uncomfortable, don't want to spend so much on a bicycle, because they think all bicycles are uncomfortable. -And Wal-Mart has no interest in catering to higher-mileage riders at all, so the biggest US bicycle retailer chain that could do the most to drive down entry-level prices isn't likely to bother doing so any time soon. As to why lots of people spend money for upright bikes, I suspect they are hoping that paying more for an upright bike gets them something that is more comfortable. Which I didn't find to be true, in my experience--spending more money gets you a /lighter/ upright bike, but the discomfort problems are still the same. I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying). When I left it was dark out, and two more ladies wanted to try it. When I asked them why they didn't try it earlier, one of them said "I'm not going to ride around on that thing with my legs up in the air in broad daylight!"--and the lady was wearing /pants/. Also I noticed when I bought the RANS Fusion that people were a lot more receptive to trying it, in part I think just because it looks "more normal". ----- You don't know how bad an upright bike feels until you get away from it. You can ride two or three times as far on a recumbent as you can on an upright bike, and STILL suffer less pain doing it. ~       Date: 09 Oct 2007 14:37:49 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike -snip- DougC wrote: > Recumbents offer the riding comfort that "average people" desire -snip- Won't be the first time I was labeled 'below average'. And proud of it! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:40:47 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 8, 9:42 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders, > ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes, > steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc. > > You post it, somebody will hate it. 100% correct. I'm sure there are Usenet users right now that are composing posts claiming that war is a positive good, alcoholism actually increases longevity and productivity, Shimano is better than Campy, and other such nonsensical beliefs. ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt   Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:36:02 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote: > Officer Bob Hunt wrote: > > On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: > > >> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the > >> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) > >> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to > >> accommodate these people. > > > Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to > > make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've > > encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think > > *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They > > certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional > > bikes. > > If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified > > accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community, > > you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist > > attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the > > greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-) > > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. > > On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not > be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with > the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity > besides cycling. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't usually frequent bike shops aimed solely at racing types. Maybe that attitude is more common in those shops but then, why would anyone expect otherwise? They are simply geared toward their target market just as any successful business must. Do you label your LBS "elitist" because they don't seem to care about how often you change the oil in your car or your local garage for not stocking 700x23 tires? Face it- neither is considering you "unworthy". Your complaint could be fairly summarized as wanting all those round holes adapt to your square peg. Sorry, neither business nor life in general works like that. Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:00:35 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Officer Bob Hunt wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >> Officer Bob Hunt wrote: >>> On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" >>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: >>>> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the >>>> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) >>>> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to >>>> accommodate these people. >>> Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to >>> make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've >>> encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think >>> *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They >>> certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional >>> bikes. >>> If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified >>> accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community, >>> you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist >>> attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the >>> greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-) >> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a >> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at >> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. >> >> On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not >> be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with >> the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity >> besides cycling. >> > > I don't usually frequent bike shops aimed solely at racing types. > Maybe that attitude is more common in those shops but then, why would > anyone expect otherwise? They are simply geared toward their target > market just as any successful business must. Do you label your LBS > "elitist" because they don't seem to care about how often you change > the oil in your car or your local garage for not stocking 700x23 > tires? Face it- neither is considering you "unworthy". Your complaint > could be fairly summarized as wanting all those round holes adapt to > your square peg. Sorry, neither business nor life in general works > like that. I have visited shops where no one wanted to discuss the bicycles sitting on the floor for sale, unless they were road or mountain bikes. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!   Date: 08 Oct 2007 17:05:03 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > ... we're back to the age-old > question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or > recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a > plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you > claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair? > > When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they > finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle. Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a bicycle saddle. In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize that. http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help. Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of "recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-) http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785 http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html - Frank Krygowski     Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:05:31 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one > is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding > style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits > properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize > that. Yes--but then we're back to the entire saddle problem with uprights, and the fact that most recumbents are only available with one type of seat. Shops that exclusively sell recumbents don't have a bunch of different seats hanging on the wall, and with many bikes (trikes especially) the seat is integral with the frame itself, and cannot be changed. Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat available? Would you buy an upright bike if the seat-post and saddle were already welded on? Why or why not? > Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of > "recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out > how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-) > Recumbutt does happen, but it generally takes quite a while to occur and is nowhere near as severe as the pain an upright saddle causes. ~       Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:25:22 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:05:31 -0500, DougC wrote: > Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat > available? By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-)         Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:29:41 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:05:31 -0500, DougC wrote: > >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >> available? > > By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-) Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. Argument is fun. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!           Date: 10 Oct 2007 14:50:14 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:29:41 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of > cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with > hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. From what I've seen here, that mostly occurs when you make claims about uprights which are hysterical and outrageous enough to provoke a reaction. > Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. No, you don't, and that's fine, but it doesn't reflect what most people think about and pros and cons of recumbents.           Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:08:55 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:29:41 -0500, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: >Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of >cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with >hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. > >Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. >Argument is fun. ;) Hey, whenever I see one of you bent folk I feign interest and ask keyword questions until you offer to let me try the bike in an effort to save me from my own certain demise. I ride it hard off a curb or into a railing before giving it back. -- zk             Date: 10 Oct 2007 08:08:31 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <d7nog3dgopvphlive9sq7a97u57dipmf2b@4ax.com >, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:29:41 -0500, Tom Sherman > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of > >cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with > >hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. > > > >Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. > >Argument is fun. ;) > > Hey, whenever I see one of you bent folk I feign interest and ask > keyword questions until you offer to let me try the bike in an effort > to save me from my own certain demise. > > I ride it hard off a curb or into a railing before giving it back. Zoot, that's just unsociable. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 10 Oct 2007 03:40:16 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom Sherman writes: >>> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >>> available? >> By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-) > Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of > cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with > hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. > Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. > Argument is fun. ;) I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an upright bicycle. That's why I like riding and talking to Bill Bushnell, who rides his two wheels just as I ride mine and never a word about reclining or upright is mentioned. http://bushnell.homeip.net/~bill/bike/pictures/sb_cc_idria.2006.05.27/index.html http://tinyurl.com/36qun6 That's the kind of recumbent rider I like to meet and with whom I can ride to interesting places. Jobst Brandt             Date: 10 Oct 2007 05:05:34 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in > their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an > upright bicycle. I only evangelize on the subject of riding comfort, and only online. Recumbents are generally agreed by knowledgeable people* to have a significant rider comfort advantage. They have disadvantages as well, but these are often not significant to casual riders**. I especially tend to mention them when someone with "typical" saddle issues gets the three standard answers: try random different saddles, get a custom fitting, and my favorite failure--get used to the pain. They don't actually /say/ to "just get used to the pain", what they say is "maybe you just haven't tried riding on your saddle long enough", but it's admitting that there possibly isn't any solution, and you should just learn to tolerate the pain. If you're young, thin and in shape, the discomfort can be rather minor. The less of those things is true, the more painful it becomes, and minor changes only give minor improvements. The bicycle saddles of today don't often look much different from each other, and often look quite similar to many that were available literally 100 years ago. If a rider wishes to sit on the saddle and that's not comfortable to do, then this is a failure of the BICYCLE, not the rider. And the (US) sales trend progression from road bicycles, to MTB's, to hybrids and now to comfort bikes is proving that typical recreations riders don't want anything to do with the classic hunched-over road riding position. Market forces created the comfort bike, NOT competition; you can't sell a comfort bike based on its "racing heritage" because it hasn't got any. The ONLY reason people are buying these bikes is because they are being advertised as "more comfortable". *(who have done extended riding on both) **(lack of organized competition and compatibility with public-transportation bicycle racks would be two I'd agree on)               Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:32:41 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in >> their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an >> upright bicycle. DougC wrote: > Recumbents are generally agreed by knowledgeable people* to have a > significant rider comfort advantage. OK, so I'm below average and not a knowledgeable person. Whatever. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 11 Oct 2007 02:00:57 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike A Muzi wrote: >> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>> I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in >>> their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an >>> upright bicycle. > > DougC wrote: >> Recumbents are generally agreed by knowledgeable people* to have a >> significant rider comfort advantage. > > OK, so I'm below average and not a knowledgeable person. Whatever. Well, really now. I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly. (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents, but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm doing the best I can here-) ~             Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:32:54 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote: > Tom Sherman writes: > >>>> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat >>>> available? > >>> By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-) > >> Go into most bicycle shops, online discussion forums, or meetings of >> cyclists and ask about recumbents, and you will be greeted with >> hostility and ridicule, or at best, disinterest. > >> Of course, some of us do not mind the negative reactions online. >> Argument is fun. ;) > > I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in > their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an > upright bicycle. Just how many of these "recumbent evangelists" are there out there? There are plenty of upright riders who will offer unsolicited mocking, negative and borderline hostile comments to anyone riding a recumbent. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!     Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:44:33 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> ... we're back to the age-old >> question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or >> recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a >> plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you >> claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair? >> >> When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they >> finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle. > > Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during > muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a > bicycle saddle. > > In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one > is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding > style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits > properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize > that. > > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help. > > Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of > "recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out > how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-) > > http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785 > > http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html "Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite some time. The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle. Not at all comparable, and those without experience should not try to equate the two. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 08 Oct 2007 13:11:13 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <1191873214.596011.250200@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >, Bob <hunrobe@aol.com > writes: > On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: > >> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the >> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) >> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to >> accommodate these people. > > Who are these "elitists" City Councils who kow-tow to motorheaded Business Improvement Associations, and cringingly & handwringingly heed their whinings about how anything that might impede motorized traffic will adversely affect The Economy. > and what accommodations are they refusing to > make? Anything which allows non-driving, local traffic to freely move about, to the supposed detriment of drivers who'd rather, on their suburban commutes, just shoot through your city without stopping anyway. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:53:34 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote: > We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the > public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) > disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to > accommodate these people. Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional bikes. If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community, you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt     Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:21:50 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Officer Bob Hunt wrote: > On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote: > >> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the >> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) >> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to >> accommodate these people. > > Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to > make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've > encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think > *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They > certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional > bikes. > If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified > accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community, > you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist > attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the > greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-) I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity besides cycling. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:40:50 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In rec.bicycles.misc "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote: > Bob Hunt wrote: >> >> Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to >> make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've >> encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think >> *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They >> certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional >> bikes. > > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. Eh, I consider any of those types of poseurs who don't own a cargo or grocery bike not worth my time to sneer at. [0] > On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not > be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with > the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity > besides cycling. On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone can be comfortable on a conventional upright at all. With the suggestion that they ride a recumbent because anyone who rides an upwrong is an addlepated fool and part of the international bicycle dealers conspiracy. [1] [0] Insert jocular emoticon here. I'm mostly joking. Mostly. [1] The preceeding paragraph is not actually targeted at you. It's actually targeted at DougC. Before I ran into his particular breed of recumbent bigotry I *was* really interested in recumbents. After that, not so much. I've recently started to become somewhat interested again after trying out a clubmate's trike (it's a fun little thing). It looks like he might end up buying a DF bike to replace it though. [2] [2] Not for comfort issues, but rather for the fact that he's broken four trike frames and is getting tired of the hassle. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org From the UML (User Mode Linux) anouncement: Fixed a bug with lots of zombies causing a UML panic. Now UML is much braver, it doesn't panic even if there are lots of zombies all over the place! Technology is funny sometimes, isn't it?       Date: 10 Oct 2007 19:49:25 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <470abdae$0$26497$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote: > I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. I have encountered attitude in clothes shops, car dealers, restaurants, and bars. _This_ is how you rip the facade off the seamy world of upright bicycles? That dog won't hunt. -- Michael Press         Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:12:27 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: > In article > <470abdae$0$26497$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote: > >> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a >> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at >> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. > > I have encountered attitude in clothes shops, > car dealers, restaurants, and bars. _This_ > is how you rip the facade off the seamy world > of upright bicycles? That dog won't hunt. What does the above have to do with anything (specific detail about the "attitudes" encountered would be useful)? Needless to say, if the sales staff at an LBS does not like a certain type of bicycle, the shop is not likely to sell many of them. That is the point. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!           Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:46:56 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <feme5b$gh0$2@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: > > In article > > <470abdae$0$26497$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote: > > > >> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a > >> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at > >> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy. > > > > I have encountered attitude in clothes shops, > > car dealers, restaurants, and bars. _This_ > > is how you rip the facade off the seamy world > > of upright bicycles? That dog won't hunt. > > What does the above have to do with anything (specific detail about the > "attitudes" encountered would be useful)? The same attitude you describe. "Are you worthy of our time? Do you really belong here? We'll take your money, but we will not take you seriously." > Needless to say, if the sales staff at an LBS does not like a certain > type of bicycle, the shop is not likely to sell many of them. That is > the point. Bicycle shops across America have entered into a secret agreement to exclude certain bicycles. I expect this dirty little secret to be broadcast on the TV show "Sixty Minutes" within the year. -- Michael Press           Date: 12 Oct 2007 13:33:51 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:12:27 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > Needless to say, if the sales staff at an LBS does not like a certain > type of bicycle, the shop is not likely to sell many of them. That is > the point. Bike shops aren't so profitable that they can afford to pass up easy sales of what customers want, even if the staff don't like those products much. I know this because their owners tell me so when having a gripe about the business and the self-absorbed young racers they employ because they're cheap. That's another point :-)             Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:33:48 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Warner wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:12:27 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote: > >> Needless to say, if the sales staff at an LBS does not like a certain >> type of bicycle, the shop is not likely to sell many of them. That is >> the point. > > Bike shops aren't so profitable that they can afford to pass up easy sales > of what customers want, even if the staff don't like those products much. I visited one shop where the owner/manager said I had to come on the "recumbent guy's" shift, if I wanted to ask questions or test ride bicycles. > I know this because their owners tell me so when having a gripe about > the business and the self-absorbed young racers they employ because > they're cheap. That's another point :-) These types are likely not interested in discussion dynamo hubs, racks and fenders with commuters either. :( -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!       Date: 09 Oct 2007 02:42:31 From: Mike Kruger Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not > be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with > the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity > besides cycling. > On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders, ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes, steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc. You post it, somebody will hate it.   Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:53:40 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 7, 10:26 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly. > It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and > stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and > the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of > balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also > stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization > that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed > network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the > realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently > nailed down to the saddle. Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis- apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it should be used. Robert R.   Date: 07 Oct 2007 21:26:49 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net >, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > writes: > In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes: >> > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: >> >> >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people >> >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. >> >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another >> >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional >> >> > bicycle design. >> >> >> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or >> >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. >> >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to >> >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up >> >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick >> >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". >> > >> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption >> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do >> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few >> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike >> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) >> > >> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal >> > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively >> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a >> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, >> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and >> > expensive bike. >> >> Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to >> get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers >> instead of going through the bother of shifting gears? >> I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on >> Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual >> low gear. > > No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on > these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles. I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about /seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse. > The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes, > which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct > amount of leg extension to the pedals. > > You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for > flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being > attached to the pedals (clipless or clips). > > It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find > bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast) > cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a > relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover > helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a > psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from > a foot-forward bike. Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly. It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently nailed down to the saddle. > At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball > tandem I bought. One of those half-mixte thingies? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 08 Oct 2007 06:56:57 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>, > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes: > > In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > >> In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes: > >> > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for > >> >> > people > >> >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. > >> >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another > >> >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of > >> >> > conventional > >> >> > bicycle design. > >> >> > >> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or > >> >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. > >> >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to > >> >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up > >> >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick > >> >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". > >> > > >> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > >> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > >> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > >> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > >> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > >> > > >> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > >> > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > >> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > >> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > >> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > >> > expensive bike. > >> > >> Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to > >> get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers > >> instead of going through the bother of shifting gears? > >> I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on > >> Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual > >> low gear. > > > > No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on > > these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles. > > I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about > /seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you > speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse. > > > The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes, > > which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct > > amount of leg extension to the pedals. > > > > You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for > > flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being > > attached to the pedals (clipless or clips). > > > > It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find > > bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast) > > cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a > > relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover > > helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a > > psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from > > a foot-forward bike. > > Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly. > > It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and > stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and > the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of > balance to keep a bike upright while awheel ...well...that was a problem, too. > > At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball > > tandem I bought. > > One of those half-mixte thingies? Nooo. Rather weirder than that. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/ Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete bottle-gen light set. The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to do that for two people. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos       Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:15:19 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>, >> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes: >>> >>> At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball >>> tandem I bought. >> One of those half-mixte thingies? > > Nooo. Rather weirder than that. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/ > > Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two > reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete > bottle-gen light set. > > The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to > manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to > do that for two people. Funky but cool. Any issues with excessive frame flexure? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 09 Oct 2007 03:43:17 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <470abc26$0$26381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>, > > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > >> In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>, > >> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/ > > > > Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two > > reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete > > bottle-gen light set. > > > > The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to > > manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to > > do that for two people. > > Funky but cool. > > Any issues with excessive frame flexure? Not at the speeds we ride. The head tube and headset seem to be coping with some pretty mighty loads, but the rest of the frame is braced, and it's about as solid as you could expect from a semi-folding 20"-wheeled tandem. So far, this has been strictly an around-the-neighbourhood solution, and even that only after I changed the stock rear cog for a somewhat larger one. The original gearing was comically high for a sluggish tandem. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 07 Oct 2007 19:59:11 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 7, 8:20 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: > > > > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people > > > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. > > > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another > > > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional > > > bicycle design. > > > The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or > > older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. > > People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to > > have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up > > soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick > > with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > expensive bike. > > Chalo I must respectfully disagree (and I've never ridden anything but conventional bikes myself and probably never well). I think this part of your statement is key: (snipped) Almost anybody of relatively normal size and physical ability (snip) Some people aren't of either/or normal size or physical ability. For riders of shorter stature it's often an issue of whether or not they can get both feet on the ground when stopped. The feet forward bikes make it easier for them to do this, making it more likely that they will ride. I'm sure they will remain a niche market, but there will be some who find they suit their needs. Smokey   Date: 07 Oct 2007 18:51:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > writes: > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> > >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional >> > bicycle design. >> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > expensive bike. Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers instead of going through the bother of shifting gears? I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual low gear. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 08 Oct 2007 03:41:24 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes: > > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: > >> > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >> > > >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people > >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. > >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another > >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional > >> > bicycle design. > >> > >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or > >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. > >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to > >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up > >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick > >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". > > > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > > expensive bike. > > Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to > get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers > instead of going through the bother of shifting gears? > I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on > Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual > low gear. No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles. The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes, which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct amount of leg extension to the pedals. You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being attached to the pedals (clipless or clips). It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast) cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from a foot-forward bike. At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball tandem I bought. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos   Date: 08 Oct 2007 01:20:28 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people > > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. > > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another > > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional > > bicycle design. > > The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or > older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. > People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to > have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up > soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick > with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and expensive bike. Chalo     Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:11:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote: >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people >>> who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. >>> The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another >>> solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional >>> bicycle design. >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > expensive bike. I gave up distance riding on uprights due to discomfort. For the few years when I had better health and many fewer demands on my time, I rode my recumbents thousands of miles per year. Chalo's 99.9 percentile mass does not necessarily mean that he will have more discomfort problems. As a counter example, my feet hurt from standing still much sooner than most other peoples, even when I was in high school and was 1.78 meters (5'10") tall with a mass of 55 kilograms (120 pounds). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:03:16 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo wrote: > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > .... Almost anybody of relatively > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > expensive bike. > > Chalo > Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair? When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle. -------- ....As to the RANS bikes, they are more comfortable, by the way that they provide more area to sit on (even though the seat pans are flexible plastic, the central area has a flat metal bracket under it--I own a Fusion, so I know). Every now and then when I am riding the Fusion or the LWB recumbent bike in town, total strangers will ask if they can try /sitting/ on it. I had "regular" bicycles for 15 years before I got into recumbents--and NOBODY ever asked me if they could sit on ANY of those bikes. ~       Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:02:44 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <5ptOi.18$or6.0@newsfe06.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Chalo wrote: > > > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > > .... Almost anybody of relatively > > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > > expensive bike. > > Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old > question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or > recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a > plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you > claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair? > > When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they > finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle. A bicycle saddle is not for sitting. One does not only fit a bicycle to one's dimensions, one develops the physique to fit the bicycle. With enough wind and muscle on a properly sized bicycle, then a resounding Yes! The saddle is comfortable. It is more than comfortable. It is a ride. -- Michael Press         Date: 09 Oct 2007 22:31:12 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote: > ... > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting. > One does not only fit a bicycle to one's > dimensions, one develops the physique > to fit the bicycle. With enough wind > and muscle on a properly sized bicycle, > then a resounding Yes! The saddle is comfortable. > It is more than comfortable. It is a ride. How do you get the newbies to stick with it that long, if the initial experiences are unpleasant? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!         Date: 09 Oct 2007 05:51:37 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Press wrote: > > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting. Who started this foolishness? I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon". It's absolute idiocy. I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate differently. > One does not only fit a bicycle to one's > dimensions, one develops the physique > to fit the bicycle. Your standards of consumer products is considerably lower than mine. ~           Date: 10 Oct 2007 00:32:05 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <G2JOi.105$0x7.29@newsfe05.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Michael Press wrote: > > > > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting. > > Who started this foolishness? > I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing > under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon". > It's absolute idiocy. > > I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world > riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate > differently. > > > One does not only fit a bicycle to one's > > dimensions, one develops the physique > > to fit the bicycle. > > Your standards of consumer products is considerably lower than mine. You do not like riding a drop handlebar bicycle. Others have also addressed your assertions about riding a drop handlebar bicycle. You apparently are not any good at it, and so your rant against drop handlebar bicycles is ill informed and feckless. -- Michael Press           Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:21:10 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:51:37 -0500, DougC wrote: > Who started this foolishness? > I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing > under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon". > It's absolute idiocy. It's not for supporting your entire weight upon, since you're pushing down on the pedals. If you're working hard seated, I'd guess it takes no more than a quarter, on average.     Date: 08 Oct 2007 08:14:25 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo wrote: > > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) > > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and > expensive bike. > Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this. I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as a comfort bike, I'd walk. OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view, putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling. The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker (my read). -paul       Date: 09 Oct 2007 20:50:00 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Paul Cassel wrote: > > I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles > absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling > frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to > my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and > hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as > a comfort bike, I'd walk. > ..... I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders (who insist on sitting on their saddles...). It's my understanding that the Chinese manufacturers of these frames (produced and sold under many different brands) are limited by the tooling they have. The frame jigs have a built-in range of geometry and size adjustability, and the current crop of comfort bikes like Townies is the farthest they can go with what they have. The Giant Revive required totally-custom tooling to manufacture its frame, and we see that the cheapest model costs $700 USD. The cheapest RANS crank-forwards are around $1000 USD, and they come equipped with pretty meek components. ~         Date: 10 Oct 2007 04:38:19 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <TcWOi.65$8O5.21@newsfe05.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Paul Cassel wrote: > > > > I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles > > absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling > > frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to > > my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and > > hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as > > a comfort bike, I'd walk. > > ..... > > I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good > for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize > the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional > /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders > (who insist on sitting on their saddles...). Most riders who have ridden so little that saddles hurt them would also be put off by the rather unusual handling of a recumbent. In particular, the handling of 'bents is worst at low speeds, which is where, er, new riders spend most of their time. It's fair to say that there might be a group of non-riders for whom typical bike saddles (or at least, the saddle on the bike they tried) are not comfortable. I've been riding for a while, and have the saddle style down to a science: I own five copies of a single Selle Italia model (Nitrox). And yet, the stock saddle on my Pinarello was so immediately and seriously...numbing...that I swapped it out after two rides. That said, recumbents bring their own flaws to the game, notably funky handling. I know of an experienced rider, who, due to back problems, found bliss with a 'bent. He also fell down at low speed in his first two weeks of use, thanks to the odd low-speed handling. The short version is this: most new riders are not likely to want a bike that virtually requires being attached to the pedals for a successful ride. Whatever virtues a recumbent may have, inflicting the typical designs on new cyclists verges on cruelty. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos           Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:52:23 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <TcWOi.65$8O5.21@newsfe05.lga>, > DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >> Paul Cassel wrote: >>> I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles >>> absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling >>> frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to >>> my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and >>> hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as >>> a comfort bike, I'd walk. >>> ..... >> I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good >> for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize >> the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional >> /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders >> (who insist on sitting on their saddles...). > > Most riders who have ridden so little that saddles hurt them would also > be put off by the rather unusual handling of a recumbent. In particular, > the handling of 'bents is worst at low speeds, which is where, er, new > riders spend most of their time. > > It's fair to say that there might be a group of non-riders for whom > typical bike saddles (or at least, the saddle on the bike they tried) > are not comfortable. I've been riding for a while, and have the saddle > style down to a science: I own five copies of a single Selle Italia > model (Nitrox). And yet, the stock saddle on my Pinarello was so > immediately and seriously...numbing...that I swapped it out after two > rides. > > That said, recumbents bring their own flaws to the game, notably funky > handling. I know of an experienced rider, who, due to back problems, > found bliss with a 'bent. He also fell down at low speed in his first > two weeks of use, thanks to the odd low-speed handling. > > The short version is this: most new riders are not likely to want a bike > that virtually requires being attached to the pedals for a successful > ride. > > Whatever virtues a recumbent may have, inflicting the typical designs on > new cyclists verges on cruelty. I understand that the crank-forward upright bicycles handle much the same as conventional bicycles that have their cranks below the saddle. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!             Date: 10 Oct 2007 08:06:29 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <fehlq8$23f$2@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > In article <TcWOi.65$8O5.21@newsfe05.lga>, > > DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > > >> Paul Cassel wrote: > >>> I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles > >>> absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling > >>> frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to > >>> my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and > >>> hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as > >>> a comfort bike, I'd walk. > >>> ..... > >> I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good > >> for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize > >> the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional > >> /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders > >> (who insist on sitting on their saddles...). > > > > Most riders who have ridden so little that saddles hurt them would also > > be put off by the rather unusual handling of a recumbent. In particular, > > the handling of 'bents is worst at low speeds, which is where, er, new > > riders spend most of their time. > > > > It's fair to say that there might be a group of non-riders for whom > > typical bike saddles (or at least, the saddle on the bike they tried) > > are not comfortable. I've been riding for a while, and have the saddle > > style down to a science: I own five copies of a single Selle Italia > > model (Nitrox). And yet, the stock saddle on my Pinarello was so > > immediately and seriously...numbing...that I swapped it out after two > > rides. > > > > That said, recumbents bring their own flaws to the game, notably funky > > handling. I know of an experienced rider, who, due to back problems, > > found bliss with a 'bent. He also fell down at low speed in his first > > two weeks of use, thanks to the odd low-speed handling. > > > > The short version is this: most new riders are not likely to want a bike > > that virtually requires being attached to the pedals for a successful > > ride. > > > > Whatever virtues a recumbent may have, inflicting the typical designs on > > new cyclists verges on cruelty. > > I understand that the crank-forward upright bicycles handle much the > same as conventional bicycles that have their cranks below the saddle. I haven't ridden one, but I think the first thing to go in typical crank-forward designs is the ability to ride no-hands. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos               Date: 10 Oct 2007 05:27:01 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > I haven't ridden one, but I think the first thing to go in typical > crank-forward designs is the ability to ride no-hands. > On the Fusion I can do it, but it requires a lot more speed than a conventional road or MTB does and it's still not as stable. The Dynamik and Zenetic, with their steeper head angles would probably do somewhat better at it. If, that is, it was actually /important/...... What is the benefit of being able to ride no-handed? If a typical casual (non-competitive) rider goes on a 30-mile ride, how many miles do you think they are riding no-handed? The whole purpose of doing so on a drop-bar bike seems to be able to give your hands a rest from the pressure of riding with part of your weight on them, and this is a condition that the RANS bikes are specifically designed to avoid in the first place. Would you give up the ability to ride no-handed, if you could escape the main reason for /needing/ to ride no-handed? For that matter, I cannot ride my LWB recumbent no-handed real well either, unless I'm going at least 20 mph or so and even then it's sketchy--but then, there's not ever much reason to ride no-handed, since there's no hand pressure at all. Also,,, with the right handlebar setup, it's easy to ride a recumbent 5-10 or more miles non-stop while steering with only one hand... ~                 Date: 11 Oct 2007 01:31:50 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <zN1Pi.78$KS3.36@newsfe03.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > > > I haven't ridden one, but I think the first thing to go in typical > > crank-forward designs is the ability to ride no-hands. > > > > On the Fusion I can do it, but it requires a lot more speed than a > conventional road or MTB does and it's still not as stable. The Dynamik > and Zenetic, with their steeper head angles would probably do somewhat > better at it. > > If, that is, it was actually /important/...... No-handing is not important per se. It's an easy benchmark for a handling issue that crops up as recumbents get more and more laid back. Note that on these relatively upright crank-forward designs, the handling is already getting a bit more tetchy than on a DF bike, and the aerodynamics are almost always worse than that of common DF bikes. So they're slow and clumsy. An excellent choice for people who want a bike they can flat-foot, though. > What is the benefit of being able to ride no-handed? If a typical casual > (non-competitive) rider goes on a 30-mile ride, how many miles do you > think they are riding no-handed? Not many. None of the riders I know no-hands for a break. They almost always do it because they're changing jackets,* getting something (usually a snack) out of a pocket, or just for a quick stretch. > For that matter, I cannot ride my LWB recumbent no-handed real well > either, unless I'm going at least 20 mph or so and even then it's > sketchy--but then, there's not ever much reason to ride no-handed, since > there's no hand pressure at all. Also,,, with the right handlebar setup, > it's easy to ride a recumbent 5-10 or more miles non-stop while steering > with only one hand... As I've pointed out before, recumbents are wonderful bicycles for those who need them. I keep bringing up my friend who changed to one due to back problems, and each time I feel more like I'm using the line "some of my best friends ride recumbents!" But precious few need them, and for those who don't, they represent an interesting set of compromises relative to the DF. First, they tend to handle less pleasantly at low speed than upright bikes, with few exceptions. Second, they tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, unusually bad low-speed handling, or both. Compounding all these, they have specific issues for new riders, including the near-necessity of clips or clipless on all but the least recumbent versions. In urban environments, low-speed handling issues and the inability to easily mount small obstacles leave recumbents dead in the water. It's just not their forte. I summed this up previously by saying that the comfy ones were slow, and the fast ones were sketchy. Few riders need a bicycle that is extra comfy or extra fast. *yeah, I ride with a bunch of fairly serious racers. No, I don't recommend removing jackets no-handed on the fly as a normal bike skill. But it's cool. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                   Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:54:36 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright > bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which > point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, > unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... Huh? Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. Now if you are talking about a bike with both a high seat and a semi-recumbent position, such as the Sun EZ-1 SC or the defunct BikeE, I could accept the the aerodynamics were slightly worse than an upright, since these particular recumbents ARE slower than a drop-bar road bike overall. [1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07.htm >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                     Date: 12 Oct 2007 14:37:33 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright > > bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which > > point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, > > unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... > > Huh? > > Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels > and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on > road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an > invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading > out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to > ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. Did you call out "Coming through!" ??? Or had you been so smug on the ride up to then that they took the opportunity to rain on your parade? What is the whole story? Are you different on the road than you are here? Are we ganging up on you? Has anything anybody said about your attitude given you pause? Go ahead now. Justify yourself with the bad manners of upright bicycle zealots. -- Michael Press                       Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:30:34 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Press wrote: > In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org>, > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright >>> bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which >>> point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, >>> unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... >> Huh? >> >> Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels >> and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on >> road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an >> invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading >> out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to >> ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. > > Did you call out "Coming through!" ??? No, there were too many people, and I did not want to try to squeeze through small gaps. > Or had you been so smug on the ride up > to then that they took the opportunity > to rain on your parade? I did not talk to anyone on the way up, make faces, rude gestures, etc. > What is the > whole story? Are you different on the > road than you are here? Most likely. (The people that know are free to comment or not comment, as they see fit.) Are you different on the road than you are here? > Are we ganging > up on you? Has anything anybody said > about your attitude given you pause? Not anything said on Usenet. :) As for the real world, all the negative comments about my recumbent bicycles have come from strangers who I did NOT speak to first. > Go ahead now. Justify yourself with > the bad manners of upright bicycle > zealots. What are you talking about? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                         Date: 14 Oct 2007 00:23:21 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <ferddv$cd9$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Michael Press wrote: > > In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org>, > > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >>> ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright > >>> bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which > >>> point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, > >>> unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... > >> Huh? > >> > >> Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels > >> and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on > >> road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an > >> invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading > >> out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to > >> ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. > > > > Did you call out "Coming through!" ??? > > No, there were too many people, and I did not want to try to squeeze > through small gaps. ??? What was the point of writing and posting your account of your annoyance? In similar circumstances I hail or call out or address conversationally as audibility dictates, then move on through the lane people make for me. > > Or had you been so smug on the ride up > > to then that they took the opportunity > > to rain on your parade? > > I did not talk to anyone on the way up, make faces, rude gestures, etc. > > > What is the > > whole story? Are you different on the > > road than you are here? > > Most likely. (The people that know are free to comment or not comment, > as they see fit.) > > Are you different on the road than you are here? Not essentially. In person, communication is much more rapid, and I avail myself of those advantages. The written word allows for other advantages, such as composing, editing, and reflection. > > Are we ganging > > up on you? Has anything anybody said > > about your attitude given you pause? > > Not anything said on Usenet. :) That's too bad. > As for the real world, all the negative comments about my recumbent > bicycles have come from strangers who I did NOT speak to first. > > > Go ahead now. Justify yourself with > > the bad manners of upright bicycle > > zealots. > > What are you talking about? I am still trying to figure out the incident on the downhill. You did not ask to play through, and you remain annoyed that you were held up. I have an intimation that you hold a grudge and it is aimed at drop bar bicyclists. -- Michael Press                           Date: 14 Oct 2007 06:27:52 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Michael Press wrote: > In article <ferddv$cd9$1@registered.motzarella.org>, > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Michael Press wrote: >>> In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org>, >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>>>> ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright >>>>> bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which >>>>> point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, >>>>> unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... >>>> Huh? >>>> >>>> Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels >>>> and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on >>>> road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an >>>> invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading >>>> out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to >>>> ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. >>> Did you call out "Coming through!" ??? >> No, there were too many people, and I did not want to try to squeeze >> through small gaps. > > ??? > What was the point of writing and posting your > account of your annoyance? In similar circumstances > I hail or call out or address conversationally > as audibility dictates, then move on through the > lane people make for me. The point was that I was faster coasting than they were pedaling, which indicates that I had a LOWER aerodynamic drag (counter to Ryan Cousineau's claim) than they did. Or do you choose to believe it was due to lower rolling resistance (as many of the upright rider/bicycle combinations outweighed me)? Why are you trying to attribute motives to me that do not exist? That is more the style of "Dear Carl Fogel". >>> Or had you been so smug on the ride up >>> to then that they took the opportunity >>> to rain on your parade? >> I did not talk to anyone on the way up, make faces, rude gestures, etc. >> >>> What is the >>> whole story? Are you different on the >>> road than you are here? >> Most likely. (The people that know are free to comment or not comment, >> as they see fit.) >> >> Are you different on the road than you are here? > > Not essentially. In person, communication is much > more rapid, and I avail myself of those advantages. > The written word allows for other advantages, such > as composing, editing, and reflection. > >>> Are we ganging >>> up on you? Has anything anybody said >>> about your attitude given you pause? >> Not anything said on Usenet. :) > > That's too bad. > >> As for the real world, all the negative comments about my recumbent >> bicycles have come from strangers who I did NOT speak to first. >> >>> Go ahead now. Justify yourself with >>> the bad manners of upright bicycle >>> zealots. >> What are you talking about? > > I am still trying to figure out the incident on the downhill. > You did not ask to play through, and you remain annoyed > that you were held up. I have an intimation that you hold > a grudge and it is aimed at drop bar bicyclists. > Only the very few that are grossly inconsiderate. I would estimate this to be less than 1% of the total (of the type that would attend events such as invitational rides). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                     Date: 12 Oct 2007 03:15:22 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright > > bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which > > point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, > > unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... > > Huh? > > Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels > and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on > road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an > invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading > out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to > ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. Your Rocket also weighs 32 pounds. Weight is an advantage in downhill coasting contests. That said, even if the Rocket is more aero than a DF bike, I'm betting it enters the territory where low-speed handling starts to get fairly weird. > Now if you are talking about a bike with both a high seat and a > semi-recumbent position, such as the Sun EZ-1 SC or the defunct BikeE, I > could accept the the aerodynamics were slightly worse than an upright, > since these particular recumbents ARE slower than a drop-bar road bike > overall. > > [1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07.htm>. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing                       Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:24:05 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <femd3u$dnh$1@registered.motzarella.org>, > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> ...Second, they [recumbents] tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright >>> bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which >>> point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, >>> unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.... >> Huh? >> >> Even on my un-faired RANS Rocket [1], with its smaller diameter wheels >> and relatively upright seating position, I easily out-coast riders on >> road bicycles who weigh more and are on the drops. I remember on an >> invitational ride the upright riders annoying me severely by spreading >> out across the whole road, leaving no room to pass, which required me to >> ride my brakes the whole time going downhill. > > Your Rocket also weighs 32 pounds. Weight is an advantage in downhill > coasting contests. Yes, but how does that explain my out-coasting someone who weighs 30 pounds more than I do. Granted, he was on a fairly lightweight bicycle, but it was certainly more than 2 pounds! > That said, even if the Rocket is more aero than a DF bike, I'm betting > it enters the territory where low-speed handling starts to get fairly > weird. I am fine about about 3 to 4 mph on my RANS Rocket. I also have problems on a road bike or ATB [1] below that speed. >> Now if you are talking about a bike with both a high seat and a >> semi-recumbent position, such as the Sun EZ-1 SC or the defunct BikeE, I >> could accept the the aerodynamics were slightly worse than an upright, >> since these particular recumbents ARE slower than a drop-bar road bike >> overall. >> >> [1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07.htm>. > [1] I crash off-road. A LOT. :( -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                   Date: 11 Oct 2007 01:52:58 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > No-handing is not important per se. It's an easy benchmark for a > handling issue that crops up as recumbents get more and more laid back. > > Note that on these relatively upright crank-forward designs, the > handling is already getting a bit more tetchy than on a DF bike, and the > aerodynamics are almost always worse than that of common DF bikes. So > they're slow and clumsy. An excellent choice for people who want a bike > they can flat-foot, though. > I haven't done any "real" distance riding on any of the comfort bikes except the Fusion I own. The purpose of the RANS bikes was not primarily having a flat-foot stance; the purpose was to come up with a frame geometry that allowed them to dispense with a conventional saddle and use the seat base of a recumbent. They had to move the pedals far forward to do that and the seat could be placed lower, and so "flat-footing" became possible--but it wasn't the original goal. When I was considering buying the Fusion, many people online (bentrider online and RANS own crankforward forum) who had tried lots of the comfort bikes tended to agree that the RANS bikes were considerably more performance-oriented than pretty much all the rest of the "comfort" bikes. Mine mostly gets used <25 mile rides but doing 50 or 100 mile rides wouldn't scare me much, it just wouldn't be quite as nice as on the recumbent. Most people who get Townies never ride them very far; it'd be interesting to borrow one and take it on a few 25-50 mile rides just to see what the problem is with long-distance use. My bet would be at least partly on the saddle. > > But precious few need them, and for those who don't, they represent an > interesting set of compromises relative to the DF. First, they tend to > handle less pleasantly at low speed than upright bikes, with few > exceptions. Second, they tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright > bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which > point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities, > unusually bad low-speed handling, or both. The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed handling anyway.....}. I kinda agree that the raked head angles of recumbents makes them steer poorly, and I am rather liking the idea of a LWB that uses a "standard" head angle with remote above-seat steering, but I don't know of any commercial examples. The only ones I have seen were under-seat steering such as the Longbikes Slipstream: http://www.longbikes.com/Slipstream.html I think that Lightfoot Cycles does above-seat remote steering (it's a trike option at least) but their LWB's already have raked head angles. ----------- The high speed aerodynamics depends greatly on which model you buy--some are worse, some are better, many are about the same. The crosswind vulnerability of a recumbent is no worse than on a regular bike. > > Compounding all these, they have specific issues for new riders, > including the near-necessity of clips or clipless on all but the least > recumbent versions. Not really; it's only on tadpole trikes that platform pedals aren't recommended--but you can't easily fall over on a tadpole trike, so there's not much argument against it. Some BMX pedals with aggressive pins is fine for <25 mile rides on probably everything but highracers and lowracers, and a beginner probably wouldn't start out with either of those types anyway, as the extreme-reclined position is rather disconcerting. > > In urban environments, low-speed handling issues and the inability to > easily mount small obstacles leave recumbents dead in the water. It's > just not their forte. What obstacles exactly? In my country, you're supposed to ride bicycles in the /street/. Also--I greatly prefer the head-mounted rear-view mirrors, and I distinctly recall that these didn't work well on my drop-bar bikes, because mostly what the mirror showed me was my own shoulder. They work great on the recumbents however. Also on the Fusion too. ,,,,,,, For that matter: I consider effective rear-view mirrors to be /critical/ to safe riding, and I don't remember /any/ good solutions for drop-bar road bikes. Helmet/eyeglass mirrors didn't work for the shoulder-view reason, and handlebar/stalk mounted mirrors vibrated too much. There's the one now that mounts centered on the frame behind the head tube, but it requires you to take your vision off the road ahead--so by my standards it fails also. > > I summed this up previously by saying that the comfy ones were slow, and > the fast ones were sketchy. > > Few riders need a bicycle that is extra comfy or extra fast. As I have seen it--most all recumbents are more comfortable to ride than uprights; it's only a matter of if a particular recumbent is faster or slower, which depends on its aerodynamics, which is often related to how reclined the rider position is. The advantage of being more comfortable is that one can stay on the bike longer and ride farther. Even if one is un-young, un-thin and un-in-shape-physically. Recumbents have a wider variety among types than upright bikes do, so making general statements is difficult. Among uprights--a racing road bike, a TT bike and a touring bike are all pretty much alike in geometry--but a BikeE, a Tour Easy and a NoCom are considerably different and can't easily be used for the same things. ~                     Date: 11 Oct 2007 08:15:23 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <TKjPi.321$Z36.133@newsfe02.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > > > No-handing is not important per se. It's an easy benchmark for a > > handling issue that crops up as recumbents get more and more laid back. > > > > Note that on these relatively upright crank-forward designs, the > > handling is already getting a bit more tetchy than on a DF bike, and the > > aerodynamics are almost always worse than that of common DF bikes. So > > they're slow and clumsy. An excellent choice for people who want a bike > > they can flat-foot, though. > The purpose of the RANS bikes was not primarily having a flat-foot > stance; the purpose was to come up with a frame geometry that allowed > them to dispense with a conventional saddle and use the seat base of a > recumbent. They had to move the pedals far forward to do that and the > seat could be placed lower, and so "flat-footing" became possible--but > it wasn't the original goal. More classic recumbents achieve this same function, as well. > When I was considering buying the Fusion, many people online (bentrider > online and RANS own crankforward forum) who had tried lots of the > comfort bikes tended to agree that the RANS bikes were considerably more > performance-oriented than pretty much all the rest of the "comfort" > bikes. Mine mostly gets used <25 mile rides but doing 50 or 100 mile > rides wouldn't scare me much, it just wouldn't be quite as nice as on > the recumbent. sportier than the slowest bikes known to science is not a recommendation. > The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer > overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be > able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a > ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say > that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed > handling anyway.....}. Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. > I kinda agree that the raked head angles of recumbents makes them steer > poorly, and I am rather liking the idea of a LWB that uses a "standard" > head angle with remote above-seat steering, but I don't know of any > commercial examples. The only ones I have seen were under-seat steering > such as the Longbikes Slipstream: > > http://www.longbikes.com/Slipstream.html > > I think that Lightfoot Cycles does above-seat remote steering (it's a > trike option at least) but their LWB's already have raked head angles. > > In urban environments, low-speed handling issues and the inability to > > easily mount small obstacles leave recumbents dead in the water. It's > > just not their forte. > > What obstacles exactly? In my country, you're supposed to ride bicycles > in the /street/. True enough. But let's take my (possibly personally biasing) completely real-world example of my commute to work. 1) I ride out of my back yard, across 20 m of grass, which ends in a short, sharp downslope to the sidewalk, which I cross and then enter the roadway. 2) about 10 km of non-special road-riding we need not concern ourselves with, except to note that I usually lane-split about 500m of backed-up cars at the busiest intersection on my route. Oh, plus the 1.8 km of 10% average grade. 3) I enter the underground parking lot at work by riding up a curb cut, across a metre of bark mulch, and then through a side entrance that includes passing through an open doorway. Then I roll my bike into the office, drop my riding shoes off for my work shoes, and carry the bike up one flight of stairs to the bike rack (it's a complicated layout; don't try to make too many assumptions about the geometry of my office). 4) work all day. This would be roughly the same whether or not I had a recumbent. 5) time for home. 1 km of substantial climbing, followed by a shortcut through the city park, which involves a semi-busy MUP (I use the grass when passing), from which the safest exit is to ride over 10 m of humped grass, followed by a curb drop to roadway. 6) more riding. How do recumbents handle speed humps? I have four on this section, and two more later. 7) quick descent, short climb, quick descent, 2-3 km of medium climb. 1-2 km of flat, then that same climb I did in the morning, only now it is a fast descent where cars normally impede my speed. 8) to get home, I ride over the grass verge, across the sidewalk, and up the short grass hump that takes me onto my lawn. This isn't me trying to make my life hard for a recumbent. That's just the route I ride to work, and it's about the easiest one I've plotted after six years of trying. When I worked at the alternate office last week, my route was much simpler, except that the fastest entry to the office was over several speed bumps on an ascending line, followed by a narrow wood ramp covered with gritted paper for traction. Oh yeah, and they tore up the road last week, so I was riding across packed sand every day, too. > > I summed this up previously by saying that the comfy ones were slow, and > > the fast ones were sketchy. > > > > Few riders need a bicycle that is extra comfy or extra fast. > > As I have seen it--most all recumbents are more comfortable to ride than > uprights; it's only a matter of if a particular recumbent is faster or > slower, which depends on its aerodynamics, which is often related to how > reclined the rider position is. I'll take it as a given that few riders are likely to seek comfort and choose sketchiness. That is, whatever the comfort issues, most comfort-seeking riders (and really, I mean people who can ride a bike, but cannot physically ride a df) are going to choose a "slow" design. More to the point, on my bicycle, fatigue has always overcome me before comfort. > The advantage of being more comfortable is that one can stay on the bike > longer and ride farther. Even if one is un-young, un-thin and > un-in-shape-physically. Yes, but most unfit people aren't going to appreciate the challenge of a bike with worse handling than a DF bike. A lot of people quit recreational riding because they can't handle the challenge of a DF bike! I know, I wonder why their parents let them down, too, but there it is. Before you suggest it, an extra-heavy, extra-slow, extra-expensive trike is not likely to drive these people to human-powered bliss. They'll just jog, or jazzercise, or go back to the couch. Most people give up on most fitness activities. > Recumbents have a wider variety among types than upright bikes do, so > making general statements is difficult. Among uprights--a racing road > bike, a TT bike and a touring bike are all pretty much alike in > geometry--but a BikeE, a Tour Easy and a NoCom are considerably > different and can't easily be used for the same things. Recumbents are, if I may generalize wildly, all specialty devices for niche purposes (people with fused vertebrae, people wanting to set land speed records). Upright bikes are the sawzalls of human-powered travel, and they do everything fairly well, and some things decisively better than any other bike. For a ride out into the countryside on roads where car traffic or signals are not the defining factors, recumbents are lovely. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos                       Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:09:45 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > ..... > True enough. But let's take my (possibly personally biasing) completely > real-world example of my commute to work. > > 1) I ride out of my back yard, across 20 m of grass, which ends in a > short, sharp downslope to the sidewalk, which I cross and then enter the > roadway. > > 2) about 10 km of non-special road-riding we need not concern ourselves > with, except to note that I usually lane-split about 500m of backed-up > cars at the busiest intersection on my route. Oh, plus the 1.8 km of 10% > average grade. > > 3) I enter the underground parking lot at work by riding up a curb cut, > across a metre of bark mulch, and then through a side entrance that > includes passing through an open doorway. Then I roll my bike into the > office, drop my riding shoes off for my work shoes, and carry the bike > up one flight of stairs to the bike rack (it's a complicated layout; > don't try to make too many assumptions about the geometry of my office). > > 4) work all day. This would be roughly the same whether or not I had a > recumbent. > > 5) time for home. 1 km of substantial climbing, followed by a shortcut > through the city park, which involves a semi-busy MUP (I use the grass > when passing), from which the safest exit is to ride over 10 m of humped > grass, followed by a curb drop to roadway. > > 6) more riding. How do recumbents handle speed humps? I have four on > this section, and two more later. > > 7) quick descent, short climb, quick descent, 2-3 km of medium climb. > 1-2 km of flat, then that same climb I did in the morning, only now it > is a fast descent where cars normally impede my speed. > > 8) to get home, I ride over the grass verge, across the sidewalk, and up > the short grass hump that takes me onto my lawn. > > This isn't me trying to make my life hard for a recumbent. That's just > the route I ride to work, and it's about the easiest one I've plotted > after six years of trying. > > When I worked at the alternate office last week, my route was much > simpler, except that the fastest entry to the office was over several > speed bumps on an ascending line, followed by a narrow wood ramp covered > with gritted paper for traction. > > Oh yeah, and they tore up the road last week, so I was riding across > packed sand every day, too. > I could probably follow that route on my LWB, with two conditions--I'd have to take the fenders off to ride down curbs--and my current handlebars are ~30 inches wide, a bit much for getting through narrow spots. I rode down curbs before I had fenders; I even rode down /stairs/ if I could approach the top perpendicularly--but I admit I never attempted to ride /up/ any stairs. The limiting factor with rough surfaces is tire width, just like with "normal" bikes. The recumbent I have will take 2.3" Big Apples on both ends, but I generally run 1.5"s. I ride the recumbent pretty much anywhere I'd be riding a typical road bike. > ..... > Yes, but most unfit people aren't going to appreciate the challenge of a > bike with worse handling than a DF bike. A lot of people quit > recreational riding because they can't handle the challenge of a DF > bike! I know, I wonder why their parents let them down, too, but there > it is. > I think the "challenge" mostly has to do with the pain associated with riding. People tend to tell me this stuff when they're asking about my recumbent bike. They probably don't bother relating it to the "Lance wannabees" riding hunched-over butt-splitting road racers. (-Note that I'm not calling /you/ a Lance-wannabe, I'm just making a point here that they don't voice these problems to people who aren't likely to be sympathetic...) > ..... > Recumbents are, if I may generalize wildly, all specialty devices for > niche purposes (people with fused vertebrae, people wanting to set land > speed records). > > Upright bikes are the sawzalls of human-powered travel, and they do > everything fairly well, and some things decisively better than any other > bike. > > For a ride out into the countryside on roads where car traffic or > signals are not the defining factors, recumbents are lovely. > I don't ride in urban traffic much because I don't live in a heavy-urban area--but I've not noticed any deficiency of the LWB in such conditions when I have done it. The recumbent I have places my eye-level about fourteen inches lower than it would be on a road bike on the tops, and about eight inches lower than they would be riding on the drops. My eye-level is still about four inches higher than people sitting in most cars. One great advantage is that on the recumbent, my eyesight is naturally facing /forward/, not down at my front wheel. Another great advantage is that I can use my brakes as hard as I wish, without worrying about tipping over forward. I have heard it argued that the high position of an upright bike allows you to see "several cars ahead" in heavy traffic. This is advisable in a car traveling /with/ the flow of traffic, but I find this argument to be of dubious advantage for a bicyclist that does not. A bicyclist's proper concern is only with the cars in immediate proximity to them. It is true that there are some recumbents that are built very low and would be pretty daring in Manhattan rush hour--but then, the lowest recumbents are build for extended high-speed cruising, and you'd never have the chance to do that in urban conditions anyway. ------------ Shockingly enough, there have been recumbents built exclusively for off-roading. Here is one individual's effort- http://www.bentrideronline.com/reviews/Off-Road/offroadrecumbent.htm which is a bit dated now. As of 2006 he was still at it, was occasionally posting on bentrideronline, had switched to running 26" wheels on both ends and was trying various suspended forks IIRC. The Bender Radian is possibly the most-well-known commercial effort, though it is a bit pricy: http://www.benderbikes.com/Radian.htm ~                       Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:01:18 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > ... > Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. > > I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling > oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen > to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get > over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those > bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. butbutbut, the lower the bike, the more fun to ride. Since the arc distance the center of mass has to move along for a given lean angle is much smaller on a lowracer than any other bicycle, lowracers have a level of responsiveness that makes everything else feel like an overloaded cargo bicycle. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!                       Date: 11 Oct 2007 10:55:12 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike -snip- > DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer >> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be >> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a >> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say >> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed >> handling anyway.....}. Ryan Cousineau wrote: > Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. > I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling > oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen > to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get > over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those > bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. -snip- Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                         Date: 12 Oct 2007 03:20:57 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <13gshof6a5a4f2c@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > -snip- > > DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer > >> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be > >> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a > >> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say > >> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed > >> handling anyway.....}. > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. > > I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling > > oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen > > to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get > > over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those > > bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. > -snip- > > Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? Er, What? -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing                           Date: 12 Oct 2007 12:43:32 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike >> -snip- >>> DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: >>>> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer >>>> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be >>>> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a >>>> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say >>>> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed >>>> handling anyway.....}. >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >>> Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. >>> I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling >>> oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen >>> to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get >>> over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those >>> bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. -snip- > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? Ryan Cousineau wrote: > Er, What? Woman on tallbike, crossing a bridge, tumbles. The guardrail merely prevented the bike from dropping into a '65'mph traffic lane below. Youtube has already pulled it. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                             Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:58:13 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <13gvcflfave7icf@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >> -snip- > >>> DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: > >>>> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer > >>>> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be > >>>> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a > >>>> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say > >>>> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed > >>>> handling anyway.....}. > > >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: > >>> Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. > >>> I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling > >>> oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen > >>> to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get > >>> over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those > >>> bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. > -snip- > > > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >> Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? > > Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > Er, What? > > Woman on tallbike, crossing a bridge, tumbles. The guardrail merely > prevented the bike from dropping into a '65'mph traffic lane below. > Youtube has already pulled it. Gah! That's horrible. I should say that while tallbikes are quite stable, no bicycle is perfectly stable. That said, if I had a tallbike, stable handling or no, I'd be pretty leery about riding it over a bridge with normal-height railings. Weird accidents happen, but perhaps most often to people doing weird things, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing                               Date: 12 Oct 2007 21:26:47 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:58:13 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <13gvcflfave7icf@corp.supernews.com>, > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > >> >> -snip- >> >>> DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> >>>> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer >> >>>> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be >> >>>> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a >> >>>> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say >> >>>> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed >> >>>> handling anyway.....}. >> >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> >>> Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low. >> >>> I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling >> >>> oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen >> >>> to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get >> >>> over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those >> >>> bike have very friendly slow-speed handling. >> -snip- >> >> > A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> >> Seen the Minneapolis tallbike tragedy yet? >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> > Er, What? >> >> Woman on tallbike, crossing a bridge, tumbles. The guardrail merely >> prevented the bike from dropping into a '65'mph traffic lane below. >> Youtube has already pulled it. > >Gah! That's horrible. > >I should say that while tallbikes are quite stable, no bicycle is >perfectly stable. That said, if I had a tallbike, stable handling or no, >I'd be pretty leery about riding it over a bridge with normal-height >railings. > >Weird accidents happen, but perhaps most often to people doing weird >things, Dear Ryan, The date shows that this bicycle was a highwheeler: "A neat specimen of riding on a rail is said to have been shown at Charlotte, N.C., lately, when a party of wheelmen were showing off near the Carolina Central Depot and some one offered a box of cigars to any rider who would ride his bicycle along the six-inch-wide hand-rail running along the side of the road for about a hundred yards, and Mr. Will Pharr accomplished it at once. A header outside would have thrown him down a dozen feet." "Outing" magazine, 1884 http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_04/outIV02/outIV02t.pdf Cheers, Carl "Not me!" Fogel       Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:17:17 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Paul Cassel wrote: > Chalo wrote: > >> >> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption >> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do >> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few >> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike >> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.) >> >> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal >> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively >> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a >> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions, >> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and >> expensive bike. >> > Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this. > > I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles > absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling > frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to > my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and > hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as > a comfort bike, I'd walk. > > OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from > a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to > ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view, > putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling. > > The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries > prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also > prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker > (my read). Damn it - now I am considering going to my local RANS dealer to try one of these crank-forward bikes for casual riding. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 07 Oct 2007 20:58:55 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 7, 9:15 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com > wrote: > The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which > is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the > this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way' > to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it > is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is > tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). . Indeed the Boulder Creek path can be extremely congested, a bad combo with too-fast riders, rollerbladers, drunks, and lots of sharp, blind turns. It is probably the most dangerous MUP I have ever ridden. And yet, when I worked as a messenger in Boulder the path was also extremely useful, and definitely made my life as a utility cyclist easier. Overall, Boulder is congested but is a relatively easy place to ride. > What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets. Like Fort Collins. Easiest town to cycle through I have ever seen. Robert   Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:15:09 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 6, 11:54 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 4:15 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: > > > > > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > > I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a > > > traditional diamond frame? > > > > Robert > > > I've got a RANS Fusion. > > Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and > > because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for > > lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs. > > > The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only > > other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more > > comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my > > shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's > > normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go, > > unlike recumbent bikes. > > > The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and > > Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems > > like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work. > > > The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the > > "flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot > > and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim > > levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the > > same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty > > mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the > > (straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on > > them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather > > low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard. > > > One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are > > proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them > > at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and > > saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the > > problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be > > considerably less severe on these bikes). > > > I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes > > but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot > > Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version. > > ~ > > I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary' > for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They > most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people > may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my > last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm > certainly not the only one. > > This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one > of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as > a form of transportation. > > Robert The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way' to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). . What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets. THAT would encourage people to actually use a bike to get around but even with that, the numbers will always be small. AND don't expect the vast majority of towns/cities/counties to spend the $.     Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:27:48 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Bike space on roadways (was: Pedal Forward Bike) Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote: > ... > The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which > is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the > this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way' > to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it > is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is > tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). . > > What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets. THAT > would encourage people to actually use a bike to get around but even > with that, the numbers will always be small. AND don't expect the vast > majority of towns/cities/counties to spend the $. A qualified agreement with Peter. On rural highways, I have found the best to be a WIDE paved (and rumble strip free) shoulder that is NOT marked as a bicycle lane. This allows riding in the relatively dirt and debris free traffic lane some to most of the time, then being able to drift over onto the shoulder to allow overtaking motor vehicle traffic to safely pass without slowing. Similarly, a wider than normal right lane in urban areas allows for the lane to be safely shared, while avoiding the ghetto effect of a marked bicycle lane that complicates left turns and leads motorists to believe bicycles should be confined to marked "bicycle facilities". -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:53:15 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 6, 4:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote: > You do not want to wear denim jeans on an upright bicycle when riding > any distance, since the seam in the crotch is very thick. Maybe you do not, but it doesn't really bother me. I've ridden a lot of miles in jeans in the winter. ALL of my cycling is done in non-bike- specific shorts or cut-offs, and I don't have any crotch related problems thank you very much. I'm far more comfortable now than when I used to wear cycling shorts all the time, that's for sure. Not everybody loves having there boyz gripped and held by a tight lycra garment. My boyz need to run free. And it's not like my taint is made of titanium or anything like that. There is a lot of myth and superstition involved in people's views on bike shorts. Robert   Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:28:01 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike RonSonic wrote: > > Paul Cassel wrote: > > > >A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple > >injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward > >RANS bike frame and built it up with high grade components. > > > >This is pretty much what it looks like: > > > >http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm > > I've considered building something up like that but with a cruiser sort of vibe. > Be fun to find whatever advantage there is in a semi recumbent while looking > stylish. http://www.playabikes.com/detail.php?bike_id=1034 http://www.playabikes.com/detail.php?bike_id=1035 Chalo   Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:54:47 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 5, 4:15 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a > > traditional diamond frame? > > > Robert > > I've got a RANS Fusion. > Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and > because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for > lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs. > > The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only > other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more > comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my > shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's > normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go, > unlike recumbent bikes. > > The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and > Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems > like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work. > > The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the > "flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot > and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim > levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the > same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty > mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the > (straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on > them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather > low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard. > > One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are > proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them > at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and > saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the > problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be > considerably less severe on these bikes). > > I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes > but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot > Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version. > ~ I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary' for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm certainly not the only one. This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as a form of transportation. Robert     Date: 08 Oct 2007 12:15:14 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 4:15 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a >>> traditional diamond frame? >>> Robert >> I've got a RANS Fusion. >> Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and >> because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for >> lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs. >> >> The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only >> other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more >> comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my >> shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's >> normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go, >> unlike recumbent bikes. >> >> The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and >> Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems >> like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work. >> >> The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the >> "flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot >> and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim >> levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the >> same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty >> mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the >> (straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on >> them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather >> low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard. >> >> One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are >> proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them >> at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and >> saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the >> problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be >> considerably less severe on these bikes). >> >> I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes >> but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot >> Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version. >> ~ > > I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary' > for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They > most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people > may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my > last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm > certainly not the only one. So then,,,, in the last TdF, how many riders wore padded shorts? Maybe those guys are just stupid, and you can go and learn them why they're such candy-asses. Padded shorts, what a bunch of wussies! Maybe you can teach them how to ride real fast too. > > This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one > of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as > a form of transportation. > > Robert > Recumbent-specific riding shorts do not have any padding; most riders do not feel the need, so there is no market for them. Upright-specific bicycling shorts, conversely, /do/. I didn't cause this, it was the opinion of a vast number of other people, and has been the opinion for many decades now. If you feel that padding isn't necessary you would seem to be in the minority. ,,,, It's also worthy to note that most recumbents are only available with one type and size of seat. Would you buy an upright bike if the saddle and seat-post were already welded on? Why or why not? ~     Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:18:22 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 4:15 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a >>> traditional diamond frame? >>> Robert >> I've got a RANS Fusion. >> Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and >> because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for >> lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs. >> >> The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only >> other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more >> comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my >> shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's >> normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go, >> unlike recumbent bikes. >> >> The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and >> Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems >> like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work. >> >> The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the >> "flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot >> and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim >> levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the >> same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty >> mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the >> (straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on >> them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather >> low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard. >> >> One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are >> proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them >> at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and >> saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the >> problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be >> considerably less severe on these bikes). >> >> I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes >> but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot >> Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version. >> ~ > > I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary' > for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They > most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people > may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my > last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm > certainly not the only one. > > This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one > of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as > a form of transportation. You do not want to wear denim jeans on an upright bicycle when riding any distance, since the seam in the crotch is very thick. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:49:35 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Paul Cassel wrote: > A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple > injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward > RANS bike frame and built it up with high grade components. > > This is pretty much what it looks like: > > http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm > > I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people > starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike > including those 'comfort' bikes. > > What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat > similar to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. > > I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line > but also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and > the scenery without having to crane my neck up. > > I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - > even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly > practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially > clothed to use it. > > I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a > conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing > seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. > > BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I > interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in > range by the unusual configuration. > > I'm impressed. If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude "if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them. The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both feet on the ground while seated. As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet, but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design, quality and service they provide. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:44:46 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise > would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to > conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude > "if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in > the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to > encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on > bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them. > > The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people > who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both > feet on the ground while seated. > > As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet, > but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design, > quality and service they provide. > I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese argument as you need to take people as you find them. I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable on this bike. Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg and perform poorly on hills or anywhere. I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are good things.       Date: 14 Oct 2007 04:46:36 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > > I don't hear a lot of reports of instability on these things at > above-slow speeds, barring the occasional full-faired model that gets > sideways and becomes an airfoil for a few seconds. Here's a video that I think effectively displays the terrible high- speed handling of a 'bent. How many pista sprinters would waggle around like this when pouring on the power? From what I see here, this crash is all about the vehicle's steering instability and not about its aerodynamic effects. The thing zigzags comically with its rider's pedal strokes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Dapy1xUq0 I have no doubt that if someone put an efficient fairing and a really tall gear on a BikeE, I would crash it long before reaching the speed shown in the video. Chalo         Date: 14 Oct 2007 06:12:00 From: Tom Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Chalo Colina wrote: > Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> I don't hear a lot of reports of instability on these things at >> above-slow speeds, barring the occasional full-faired model that gets >> sideways and becomes an airfoil for a few seconds. > > Here's a video that I think effectively displays the terrible high- > speed handling of a 'bent. How many pista sprinters would waggle > around like this when pouring on the power? From what I see here, > this crash is all about the vehicle's steering instability and not > about its aerodynamic effects. The thing zigzags comically with its > rider's pedal strokes: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Dapy1xUq0 > > I have no doubt that if someone put an efficient fairing and a really > tall gear on a BikeE, I would crash it long before reaching the speed > shown in the video. That was Rob English in the Mango at the World Human Powered Speed Competition in Battle Mountain, Nevada. He was traveling ~110 kph (about 70 mph) at the time of the crash [1]. Chalo is wrong on a couple of counts. The crash of the Mango was attributed to aerodynamic instability, and not even a world class rider would get near 70 mph in a fully faired BikeE due to the huge frontal area. Condemning recumbent handling in general due to the crash of a very specialized streamliner on a record attempt run, is like refusing to ride in a Mercedes-Benz passenger car because one of their race cars got airborne and flipped at Le Mans a few years back. [1] Mr. English's first words when race workers arrived on the scene was "How is the bike?" - a sign of the true cyclist. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!         Date: 14 Oct 2007 05:24:28 From: Mike Kruger Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1192337196.190570.214610@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Ryan Cousineau wrote: >> >> I don't hear a lot of reports of instability on these things at >> above-slow speeds, barring the occasional full-faired model that gets >> sideways and becomes an airfoil for a few seconds. > > Here's a video that I think effectively displays the terrible high- > speed handling of a 'bent. How many pista sprinters would waggle > around like this when pouring on the power? From what I see here, > this crash is all about the vehicle's steering instability and not > about its aerodynamic effects. The thing zigzags comically with its > rider's pedal strokes: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Dapy1xUq0 > > I have no doubt that if someone put an efficient fairing and a really > tall gear on a BikeE, I would crash it long before reaching the speed > shown in the video. Chalo, the claim is that he's going 70 mph, probably trying to set some sort of speed record. I don't think that has much to say about normal conditions.       Date: 07 Oct 2007 16:55:35 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike In article <LNednVzueJ4mbZXanZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com >, Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > > > > If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise > > would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to > > conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude > > "if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in > > the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to > > encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on > > bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them. > > > > The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people > > who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both > > feet on the ground while seated. > > > > As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet, > > but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design, > > quality and service they provide. > > > > I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a > bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese > argument as you need to take people as you find them. > > I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but > then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable > on this bike. > > Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg > and perform poorly on hills or anywhere. I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands, and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town. The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that. > I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes > some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are > good things. Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional bicycle design. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos         Date: 10 Oct 2007 19:05:06 From: Bob Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 9, 11:48 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:56:59 -0700, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> concluded: > > > Personally, I don't care what others may think of my choice in > >clothing. I dress to suit myself, not some stranger that may catch a > >glimpse of me as I ride by. > > Bob, we all know you wear full kit and look hot in spandex. (for a > man your age) > > I, on the other hand, prefer to have cagers stare, or do a > double-take, when I ride by. You cant arguably "not see", dayglo > fluorescent hot-pink under most common lighting situations. > > If I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I like/love your > helmet/hat", I'd be riding carbon fibre Cervelos in the rain. > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert_waltz/495067428/> > > Dress to be seen or you might as well ride naked and get lots of > attention, maybe even some free time to ponder a career change. > -- > zk I didn't say I didn't dress to be seen. I said I don't care what others think of what I wear. I guess you and I have that much in common anyway. BTW, I look great in spandex for a man 20 years younger than me. Okay, maybe just 15 years younger. Regards, Bob Hunt           Date: 11 Oct 2007 11:37:17 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Bob wrote: > On Oct 9, 11:48 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: > > I didn't say I didn't dress to be seen. I said I don't care what > others think of what I wear. I guess you and I have that much in > common anyway. BTW, I look great in spandex for a man 20 years younger > than me. Okay, maybe just 15 years younger. > I doubt you're a girl who is sensitive about what she thinks are her too large thighs. I'm a bit baffled about this thread. First, I say that I personally gave up riding for a few years after an abortive start due to saddle discomfort. Then I relay that three women who I tried to introduce to cycling gave up due to discomfort even after being fitted by pro shops. The replies are along the lines of, "I doubt anybody gave up due to discomfort." Well, I did. They did. It took a friend of mine to get me to try again. He lent me a bicycle and fitted me. Then there is the snooty response from Zoot about the flabbiness of the women. YEAH they are flabby. That's the reason they wished to ride. -paul             Date: 11 Oct 2007 14:03:57 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:37:17 -0600, Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote: >The replies are along the lines of, "I doubt anybody gave up due to >discomfort." Well, I did. They did. It took a friend of mine to get me >to try again. He lent me a bicycle and fitted me. > >Then there is the snooty response from Zoot about the flabbiness of the >women. YEAH they are flabby. That's the reason they wished to ride. A properly fitted bike and the world's most perfect saddle won't cure a flabby lazy ass. You have to ride it and sometimes it's the truth of the matter that hurts the most. When I started back on the bike my ass ached, my legs throbbed, my hands hurt, my lungs burned and my neck got stiff. Changing nothing except a few adjustments, before the end of a month the pains all disappeared except the chronic problems with my hands and wrists. After two winters they'd even stopped getting numb on long rides Never once did I consider riding a recumbent or not cycling as a satisfactory method of dealing with the discomfort. The long term benefits I derive from cycling outweigh any piddling pain I'd experienced before I'd achieved the necessary physical conditioning. Had I been looking for an excuse to not ride I could have easily blamed it on the bike and only fluffy whiners like you and your lady friends would have believed it was the bike's fault. -- zk               Date: 13 Oct 2007 13:23:45 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Zoot Katz wrote: > > A properly fitted bike and the world's most perfect saddle won't cure > a flabby lazy ass. You have to ride it and sometimes it's the truth > of the matter that hurts the most. -Well that, or, you didn't know a better way to go about it..... > When I started back on the bike my ass ached, my legs throbbed, my > hands hurt, my lungs burned and my neck got stiff. > On a recumbent, the legs throbbing and the lungs burning depends on how hard one chooses to ride; the rest of your experience generally wouldn't have occurred at all. Bicycling doesn't /need/ to involve pain--you just need to buy the right bike. ~         Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:18:30 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Ryan Cousineau wrote: > In article <LNednVzueJ4mbZXanZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com>, > Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote: > >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>> If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise >>> would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to >>> conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude >>> "if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in >>> the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to >>> encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on >>> bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them. >>> >>> The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people >>> who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both >>> feet on the ground while seated. >>> >>> As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet, >>> but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design, >>> quality and service they provide. >>> >> I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a >> bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese >> argument as you need to take people as you find them. >> >> I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but >> then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable >> on this bike. >> >> Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg >> and perform poorly on hills or anywhere. > > I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands, > and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances > aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town. > > The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest > rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km > long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that. > >> I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes >> some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are >> good things. > > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues. > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional > bicycle design. The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems. People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting". We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level) disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to accommodate these people. The crank-forward bicycles have the advantage of being much more like a "conventional" bicycle than a recumbent, while providing much of the comfort advantages that a recumbent does to an inexperienced and/or casual rider. [1] For this day and age. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:47:23 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 4, 1:55 pm, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net > wrote: > Yeah, similar but his had many different details. The RANS website > claims it's stronger up hills than a conventional bike. My little run up > a minor hill supported that claim. Doubtful. You can't stand, and the seat location requires that you pull on the bars during forceful riding... but that use of muscles is not efficient since your arms are not propelling the bike. It would be better to have your CG located so that your upper body can relax on a seated climb. It may *feel* fine to have cranks-forward... pulling on the bars, but I don't see how it could be as fast or efficient. > My run was partly down a dirt road with washboard and some sand. I felt > ok but I'd be skeptical that this would work as a real mountain bike on > tech stuff. A lack of ability to stand would make it a poor choice for that.   Date: 04 Oct 2007 22:06:57 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:49:48 -0600, Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote: >A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple >injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward >RANS bike frame and built it up with high grade components. > >This is pretty much what it looks like: > >http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm > >I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people >starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike >including those 'comfort' bikes. > >What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat >similar to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. > >I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line >but also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and >the scenery without having to crane my neck up. > >I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - >even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly >practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially >clothed to use it. > >I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a >conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing >seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. > >BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I >interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in >range by the unusual configuration. > >I'm impressed. > >-paul (not a bike expert by any means). I've considered building something up like that but with a cruiser sort of vibe. Be fun to find whatever advantage there is in a semi recumbent while looking stylish. Ron     Date: 06 Oct 2007 09:16:14 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike RonSonic wrote: > > I've considered building something up like that but with a cruiser sort of vibe. > Be fun to find whatever advantage there is in a semi recumbent while looking > stylish. > The little I tried a 'bent didn't impress me because of the low slung position. I felt sunken into traffic and even more vulnerable than usual. Where I am, most drivers are courteous to bikes, but the streets don't really accommodate bikes well so the drivers are badly inconvenienced by bicycles in a lot of places. This has led to some bike deaths. Also the extreme pedal forward of the 'bent bothered my buddy who did the RANS bike because that position bothered his back. To answer another question, I never tried a steep hill which would have caused me to stand on a conventional bike. I only tried a shallow hill finding the RANS as easy to go up it as a conventional.   Date: 04 Oct 2007 14:16:10 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Paul Cassel wrote: > A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple > injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward > RANS bike frame and built it up with high grade components. > > This is pretty much what it looks like: > > http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm > > I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people > starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike > including those 'comfort' bikes. > > What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat > similar to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. > > I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line > but also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and > the scenery without having to crane my neck up. > > I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - > even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly > practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially > clothed to use it. > > I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a > conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing > seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. > > BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I > interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in > range by the unusual configuration. > > I'm impressed. > > -paul (not a bike expert by any means). Those crank forward bikes are recumbent like enough to gather the attention of some recumbent riders. Rans makes some very good recumbents, I own one. They design their bikes to be pretty rider friendly. I have never ridden one of the crank forward bikes but they look interesting. JAU     Date: 06 Oct 2007 03:15:23 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Just A User wrote: > ...Rans makes some very good recumbents, I own one.... Who is "Rans"? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia 1999 RANS Wave to Tailwind Conversion 2000 RANS Rocket -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 06 Oct 2007 08:06:59 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Just A User wrote: >> ...Rans makes some very good recumbents, I own one.... > > Who is "Rans"? > My bad. RANS         Date: 06 Oct 2007 09:28:58 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Just A User wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Just A User wrote: >>> ...Rans makes some very good recumbents, I own one.... >> >> Who is "Rans"? >> > My bad. RANS The Church of RANS forgives you. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 04 Oct 2007 13:55:04 From: Greens Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike "Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote in message news:YaednWw88aDUlpjanZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@comcast.com... >A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple >injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward RANS >bike frame and built it up with high grade components. > > This is pretty much what it looks like: > > http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm > > I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people > starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike > including those 'comfort' bikes. > > What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat similar > to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. > > I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line but > also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and the > scenery without having to crane my neck up. > > I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - > even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly > practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially clothed > to use it. > > I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a > conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing > seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. > > BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I > interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in range > by the unusual configuration. > > I'm impressed. > > -paul (not a bike expert by any means). Is this one? Looks like the seat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgV0tcKCN4A I'd like to see the thing in action. Haven't found any videos with the bike moving or going up hill.     Date: 04 Oct 2007 13:55:30 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike Greens wrote: > "Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote in message > news:YaednWw88aDUlpjanZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@comcast.com... >> A friend of mine who is an avid bicyclist had to quit due to multiple >> injuries. As a move perhaps of desperation, he bought a pedal forward RANS >> bike frame and built it up with high grade components. >> >> This is pretty much what it looks like: >> >> http://www.ransbikes.com/07ZTour.htm >> >> I tried it and found it to be extremely pleasant to ride. I think people >> starting out riding would prefer this greatly over any conventional bike >> including those 'comfort' bikes. >> >> What I enjoyed was the seat as opposed to a saddle. He put a seat similar >> to a recumbent seat which you sit on rather than straddle. >> >> I liked the up high like a bicycle (as opposed to a 'bent) sight line but >> also the upright posture which means I was looking at traffic and the >> scenery without having to crane my neck up. >> >> I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - >> even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly >> practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially clothed >> to use it. >> >> I'm unsure if I'll get one, but I was very impressed. I suppose a >> conventional bike like a 'racer' type would go faster, but this thing >> seems to have it made for comfort and practicality. >> >> BTW, my friend was in the middle of a casual 70 + mile ride when I >> interrupted him for a demo ride. It's not like you are restricted in range >> by the unusual configuration. >> >> I'm impressed. >> >> -paul (not a bike expert by any means). > > Is this one? Looks like the seat. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgV0tcKCN4A > > I'd like to see the thing in action. Haven't found any videos with the bike > moving or going up hill. > > Yeah, similar but his had many different details. The RANS website claims it's stronger up hills than a conventional bike. My little run up a minor hill supported that claim. My run was partly down a dirt road with washboard and some sand. I felt ok but I'd be skeptical that this would work as a real mountain bike on tech stuff. My friend whose bike it is, says hills are easy. -paul   Date: 04 Oct 2007 10:05:29 From: Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike On Oct 4, 9:49 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net > wrote in part: > > I also enjoyed that I just got on the bike with my full street clothes - > even hiking boots - and the ride felt natural. It struck me as a highly > practical form of transport because you don't need to be specially > clothed to use it. I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a traditional diamond frame? Robert     Date: 05 Oct 2007 05:15:29 From: DougC Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15757@aol.com wrote: > > I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a > traditional diamond frame? > > Robert > I've got a RANS Fusion. Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs. The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go, unlike recumbent bikes. The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work. The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the "flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the (straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard. One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be considerably less severe on these bikes). I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version. ~       Date: 06 Oct 2007 16:21:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike DougC wrote: > I've got a RANS Fusion. See a urologist. Bill "yeah, yeah...slow afternoon" S.     Date: 04 Oct 2007 13:52:13 From: Paul Cassel Subject: Re: Pedal Forward Bike r15757@aol.com wrote: > > I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a > traditional diamond frame? > I'm sitting on a sling sort of seat which means that bicycling shorts aren't needed. There is no chafe or compression. It's like sitting on a 'director's chair'. Also the chainring didn't threaten to chew on my pants leg. I also felt no need for clipless pedals / shoes. The flatties he had worked well. -paul