Easy Racer

has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy insisted that these are where
most bent riders end eventually. It was too rainy to test ride anything. Also, is chromoly
really aluminum on top of steel? I was under the impression it's an alloy yet wasn't able to
verify on google

sid wrote:

> has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy insisted that these are where most
> bent riders end eventually.

Which model is it? The "Tour Easy" and "Gold Rush" models are excellent bikes all around, very
easy to ride, fast, and reliable. The "EZ" line of bikes is easy to ride, inexpensive, but not
exactly high end.

> Also, is chromoly really aluminum on top of steel?

The "Tour Easy", "EZ-1 SC", "EZ-3", "EZ Sport", and "EZ tandem" models are chromolly steel. The
"Gold Rush Replica", "Fold-Rush", "EZ-1 Lite", "EZ-3 AL", and "EZ Sport LE" are aluminum. And the
"Ti-Rush" is titanium. None of them are "aluminum on top of steel".

See http://www.easyracers.com/ for more details.

Joao "not affiliated with Easy Racers but love their bikes" de Souza

> Also, is chromoly really aluminum on top of steel?

Chromoly is a hi strength steel alloy thats fairly light in weight(for steel).It can be brazed.

sid wrote:

> Also, is chromoly really aluminum on top of steel?

Oops. Misread this line. As a bit of oversimplification, chromoly is a type of steel alloy that
contains chromium and molybdenum in the mix along with the usual iron and carbon. It doesn't contain
any aluminum.

run, dont walk as far away from that place as you can- I've got a tour easy- I love it and wouldnt
trade it for anything (except maybe a p-38) but a bent is such an individual thing that anyone who
tries to spoon you into something just cuz everyone else is doing it is talking out of orifices
remotely located from his mouth. you might very well end up with an easy racer- but the only way to
find out for sure is to ride as many different types of bents as you can get your hands on gebuh

sid wrote:
>has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy insisted that these are where most
>bent riders end eventually. It was too rainy to test ride anything.

"sid" <greaser35@cox.net> wrote in message news:<81e_b.8836$CQ6.5031@fed1read05>...
> has anyone tried this?

Tried what? If you are looking for TE plans:

http://home.flash.net/~staudt/bike.htm

lostjohnriley@netscape.net (john riley) wrote in message news:<8171373e.0402230408.26340008@posting.google.com>...
>
> Tried what? If you are looking for TE plans:
>
> http://home.flash.net/~staudt/bike.htm

For "TE Clone" plans and examples, also visit:

http://www.recycledrecumbent.com/

Pamela

Very interesting. The Mach 2 does something a lot of people have talked about; getting the seat a bit lower:

http://www.recycledrecumbent.com/picture%20page%205.htm

John Riley

For what it is worth, chromoly is a 4130 steel alloy which is widely used
for stock car racing and airplane frames. It is a high-strength and easily
weldable alloy. This is one of the reasons it is a logical, inexpensive
choice for bicycle frames. In my opinion it is a better choice than
aluminum from the fatigue standpoint. Portions of aluminum frames that see
high cyclic stresses need to be beefed up relative to steel. This is why in
many instances aluminum frames will appear fatter than their steel
counterparts.
"sid" <greaser35@cox.net> wrote in message
news:81e_b.8836$CQ6.5031@fed1read05...
> has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy insisted
that
> these are where most bent riders end eventually. It was too rainy to test ride anything. Also, is
> chromoly really aluminum on top of steel? I was under the impression it's an alloy yet wasn't able
> to verify on
google

Forgive me for getting carried away, but I just had to respond
thoroughly to this response:

First a response to the original poster:

Test ride lots of bikes of various configurations, and buy one you like and can afford. It is most
likely that factors like the seat height, steering arrangement, or even the number of water bottle
braze-ons will make much more difference to your long term enjoyment of the bike than the exact
metallic composition of the frame.

As for the dealer who suggested the Easy-Racers bikes, I'd tell him that most everyone eventually
ends up in a pine box someday, but that I'm not going to make my current choice of sleeping
arrangements based on that fact. Even if what he told you about most recumbent riders eventually
finding themselves on Easy-Racers were true, an Easy-Racer bike may not be the right choice for you
right now. They are indeed nice bikes, but they are not for everyone.

Now a response to "Samuel Burkeen" <samuel.burkeen@wdn.com>:

Actually, 4130 is just one type of chromium-molybdenum alloyed steel. The 4 means that the iron is
alloyed with primarily molybdenum, the 1 essentially means that there is no more than 1.5% non-
ferrous metals in the alloy, and the 30 means that the steel contains 0.30% carbon, which is a low
enough carbon content to make the steel easily weldable. 4140, and 4340 are other common chromium
and molybdenum alloys, but they are not as easily weldable is 4130. 4130 is widely used by
experimental aircraft fabricators, and industrially it is used primarily in high-temperature
applications.

NASCAR, if I am correctly informed, mandates that mild steel be used to construct stock-car frames.
Mild steel is non-alloyed low carbon steel (1018, or 1020). The reasoning behind this mandate is
that these weaker steels are more likely to absorb impacts by deforming than 4130, which is more
likely to break than is mild steel. Crash protection usually isn't an issue in bicycle frame design.
If I understand correctly, NASCAR allows the use of chromium molybdenum steel in non-structural
components.

Aluminum, and its alloys, certainly does not have the same fatigue resistance that steel has, but
the reason that aluminum bicycles usually have fatter tubes than steel bicycles is manifold. For a
given cross-sectional area, aluminum is not as strong, speaking of tensile and compressive strength,
as steel, but it does have a lower density. To make aluminum tubes as strong as steel tubes they
have to have more cross-sectional area than steel tubes, i.e thicker walls for the same outside
diameter, or bigger diameters for the same wall thickness. For a given weight, larger diameter tubes
are stiffer,
i.e. more resistant to bending, than smaller diameter tubes, but with equal tensile and compressive
strengths. Without showing the math, suffice it to say that, for a given tensile strength,
aluminum tubes can be made stiffer than steel tubes while maintaining walls thick enough to
discourage buckling or denting, which is a problem with very thin-walled steel tubes.

in the anal orifice to post weld heat treat and age properly in order to restore the original
properties of the alloy. However, almost all small manufacturers get away with not performing a post
weld heat treatment on their ChroMoly frames.

I hope this helps someone, and if I'm in error any where here, then I apologize, and ask that
someone who actually knows what they are talking about, i.e. not me, point it out. I'm always
eager to learn.

"Samuel Burkeen" <samuel.burkeen@wdn.com> writes:

> For what it is worth, chromoly is a 4130 steel alloy which is widely used for stock car racing and
> airplane frames. It is a high-strength and easily weldable alloy. This is one of the reasons it is
> a logical, inexpensive choice for bicycle frames. In my opinion it is a better choice than
> aluminum from the fatigue standpoint. Portions of aluminum frames that see high cyclic stresses
> need to be beefed up relative to steel. This is why in many instances aluminum frames will appear
> fatter than their steel counterparts. "sid" <greaser35@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:81e_b.8836$CQ6.5031@fed1read05...
> > has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy insisted
> that
> > these are where most bent riders end eventually. It was too rainy to test ride anything. Also,
> > is chromoly really aluminum on top of steel? I was under the impression it's an alloy yet wasn't
> > able to verify on
> google
> >

re steel used for stock car cages - see item 2. under "Chassis and body" section of NASCAR class
rules at http://www.tricitymotorsports.com/lmr.html Late Model Stock is the most common "at your
local track all around the country"V8 powered class. 4130 is unambiguously specced. Safety at the
speeds involved even in local racing requires serious material strength.

"George MacKenzie" <gmackenz@ratsnest.qwest.net> wrote in message
news:86d67y4zcu.fsf@ratsnest.qwest.net...
>
> Forgive me for getting carried away, but I just had to respond thoroughly to this response:
>

>
> Now a response to "Samuel Burkeen" <samuel.burkeen@wdn.com>:
>
> Actually, 4130 is just one type of chromium-molybdenum alloyed steel. The 4 means that the iron is
> alloyed with primarily molybdenum, the 1 essentially means that there is no more than 1.5% non-
> ferrous metals in the alloy, and the 30 means that the steel contains 0.30% carbon, which is a low
> enough carbon content to make the steel easily weldable. 4140, and 4340 are other common chromium
> and molybdenum alloys, but they are not as easily weldable is 4130. 4130 is widely used by
> experimental aircraft fabricators, and industrially it is used primarily in high-temperature
> applications.
>
> NASCAR, if I am correctly informed, mandates that mild steel be used to construct stock-car
> frames. Mild steel is non-alloyed low carbon steel (1018, or 1020). The reasoning behind this
> mandate is that these weaker steels are more likely to absorb impacts by deforming than 4130,
> which is more likely to break than is mild steel. Crash protection usually isn't an issue in
> bicycle frame design. If I understand correctly, NASCAR allows the use of chromium molybdenum
> steel in non-structural components.
>
> Aluminum, and its alloys, certainly does not have the same fatigue resistance that steel has, but
> the reason that aluminum bicycles usually have fatter tubes than steel bicycles is manifold. For a
> given cross-sectional area, aluminum is not as strong, speaking of tensile and compressive
> strength, as steel, but it does have a lower density. To make aluminum tubes as strong as steel
> tubes they have to have more cross-sectional area than steel tubes, i.e thicker walls for the same
> outside diameter, or bigger diameters for the same wall thickness. For a given weight, larger
> diameter tubes are stiffer,
> i.e. more resistant to bending, than smaller diameter tubes, but with equal tensile and
> compressive strengths. Without showing the math, suffice it to say that, for a given tensile
> strength, aluminum tubes can be made stiffer than steel tubes while maintaining walls thick
> enough to discourage buckling or denting, which is a problem with very thin-walled steel
> tubes.
>

> in the anal orifice to post weld heat treat and age properly in order to restore the original
> properties of the alloy. However, almost all small manufacturers get away with not performing a
> post weld heat treatment on their ChroMoly frames.
>
> I hope this helps someone, and if I'm in error any where here, then I apologize, and ask that
> someone who actually knows what they are talking about, i.e. not me, point it out. I'm always
> eager to learn.
>
> "Samuel Burkeen" <samuel.burkeen@wdn.com> writes:
>
> > For what it is worth, chromoly is a 4130 steel alloy which is widely
used
> > for stock car racing and airplane frames. It is a high-strength and
easily
> > weldable alloy. This is one of the reasons it is a logical,
inexpensive
> > choice for bicycle frames. In my opinion it is a better choice than aluminum from the fatigue
> > standpoint. Portions of aluminum frames that
see
> > high cyclic stresses need to be beefed up relative to steel. This is why
in
> > many instances aluminum frames will appear fatter than their steel counterparts. "sid"
> > <greaser35@cox.net> wrote in message news:81e_b.8836$CQ6.5031@fed1read05...
> > > has anyone tried this? I was at a shop today and the sales guy
insisted
> > that
> > > these are where most bent riders end eventually. It was too rainy to test ride anything. Also,
> > > is chromoly really aluminum on top of steel? I was under the impression it's an alloy yet
> > > wasn't able to verify on
> > google
> > >
>

"news.verizon.net" <vze4xrpr@verizon.net> writes:

>
re steel used for stock car cages - see item 2. under "Chassis and body"
section of NASCAR class rules at http://www.tricitymotorsports.com/lmr.html
Late Model Stock is the most common "at your local track all around the
country"V8 powered class. 4130 is unambiguously specced. Safety at the
speeds involved even in local racing requires serious material strength.

The point of my response to the original poster was that other factors
contribute more to one's enjoyment of a bicycle than the material of
construction, and my response to the respondent concerned properties
of the materials in question.

I've read in the past in many places that race car sanctioning boards,
including NASCAR, specify mild steel to be used in the construction of
race car frames and roll cages. Today, after as much googling on the
subject as I could stand, I can only concluded that this is still by
and large true. For every one page I found that said something to the
effect that NASCAR requires chromoly, I found 15 stating that they
require mild steel and only mild steel. There are several classes,
all with different rules, and apparently the rules change over time.
If I had more patience, and if I cared, perhaps I could get the
current official word on the matter.

The point was that mild steel is not as brittle as chromoly steels,
and not quite as strong either.

If anyone cares, here are some websites I found which talk about the subject:

http://www.openroadracing.com

http://www.inthepits.net/pages/ITP12sp12.html
http://www.starspeedway.com/350super.htm
http://www.adirondackspeedway.com/Ma..._truestock.htm
http://watsonvillespeedway.com/asrules04.html
http://www.stockcarracing.com/techarticles/41118/

I doubt that any of these are the definitive word, and if anyone has
success finding the truth on the dreadfully slow nascar.com website,
then please let me know.