what are those lame ass bikes?

Ron

> I've never seen a recumbent without its prerequisite geek attached.
>
> -Kenny

Hey Kenny,

I'll bet you work for one of those geeks. We geeks, the ones you
probably picked on in high school, now own the buildings you see
downtown and the businesses you buy from. People like you now clean
our swimming pools. If you happen to work for one of the geeks who
figured out how to how to really live well, you also clean up our used
condoms and champagne bottles from those pools.

Ironic that without us geeks, you wouldn't have the computers,
internet or software you're using to post your flames. You also
couldn't withdraw money (assuming you have any) from an ATM. Heck,
you couldn't even place a phone call.

Kenny - grab your pick-axe and get back to work.

Stewart Fleming

Ron wrote:

> our swimming pools. If you happen to work for one of the geeks who
> figured out how to how to really live well, you also clean up our used
> condoms and champagne bottles from those pools.

Sounds just like the personal hygiene habits of most geeks right enough...

Kyle Legate

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> I call my upwrong bikes "wedgies" for all the usual reasons. I am
> regularly faster on my touring bike than the local roadies on their
> road irons. I ride a recumbent for speed, reduced wind resistance and
> comfort. My 40lb recumbent is about the same on average as my 28lb
> wedgie, and if I ever get myself a carbon lowracer I confidently
> expect to go faster.
>
It's not about the bike.

Rick Warner

"Pete" <ptr@usaf.com> wrote in message news:<7M0dc.161$YH2.64@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> "Dave" <dhansen2@socal.rr.com> wrote
> >
> > Huh? Around here the only people I see riding those are old overweight
> people with helmet visors
> > and mirrors
> >
>
> 'old' and 'overweight' does not go well with 80+mph
>
> http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarec7.html#nom01
>


And a sample size of 1 does not define the class. Take out one fit person
riding a faired pod down the hill, and see what is left of the class.

- rick

Tom Kunich

"Rick Warner" <rickwarner@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bc2b2f85.0404121555.59601534@posting.google.com...
> "Pete" <ptr@usaf.com> wrote in message
news:<7M0dc.161$YH2.64@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> > "Dave" <dhansen2@socal.rr.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Huh? Around here the only people I see riding those are old
overweight
> > people with helmet visors
> > > and mirrors
> >
> > 'old' and 'overweight' does not go well with 80+mph
> >
> > http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarec7.html#nom01
>
> And a sample size of 1 does not define the class. Take out one fit
person
> riding a faired pod down the hill, and see what is left of the class.

Not to mention - if you look down that list to "arms only" which I assume
means recumbents only partially faired, you'll note that the record for a
flying 200 meters is about the same as Lance's 40 mile TT times.

Carl Sundquist

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Not to mention - if you look down that list to "arms only" which I assume
> means recumbents only partially faired, you'll note that the record for a
> flying 200 meters is about the same as Lance's 40 mile TT times.
>

Arms only means just that: propulsion by arms only. It is a category
intended for disabled riders.

Pete

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> Not to mention - if you look down that list to "arms only" which I assume
> means recumbents only partially faired, you'll note that the record for a
> flying 200 meters is about the same as Lance's 40 mile TT times.

um, no, Tom. "Arms Only" means 'arm powered only' bike/trike.
As in one of these, maybe,
http://www.handcycle.com/photo.htm
or these,
http://www.varnahandcycles.com/

But you knew that, didn't you...

I don't know about you, but 30mph on the flat using just your arms sounds
pretty good to me.

What's with all this ragging on 'bents? They are merely another shape
bike/trike. More comfortable for some, faster in some situations, slower in
others, totally unsuitable for other situations. So what?

They are not the be all and end all of bike design. They are not the 'best'
solution for all types of riding. But then again, no single bike design is.

Name one bike design that is good for everything. Some come closer than
others, but none are good for all types of riding

Pete

Howard Kveck

In article <107mjh441t9b69a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Not to mention - if you look down that list to "arms only" which I assume
> > means recumbents only partially faired, you'll note that the record for a
> > flying 200 meters is about the same as Lance's 40 mile TT times.
> >
>
> Arms only means just that: propulsion by arms only. It is a category
> intended for disabled riders.

I saw people on recumbents up in the hills where I ride three times last
year. One was a guy out near the coast, and I would have to assume he rode
up over a hill to ge there. Another time was up on Tunitas Creek Road,
which is a fairly tough climb. But as I approached, I noticed he was on the
small gear on the cluster and he wasn't always pedaling. He had some kind
of motor under the bodywork. Lame... But the last one was a woman on a
three wheeled one with hand cranks - I saw her up on the steepest part of
Page Mill Road, in a section which is about an average of 8.5%. That
impressed me.

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Benjamin Weiner

Ron <total_computer_idiot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've never seen a recumbent without its prerequisite geek attached.
> >
> > -Kenny

> Hey Kenny,

> I'll bet you work for one of those geeks. We geeks, the ones you
> probably picked on in high school, now own the buildings you see
> downtown and the businesses you buy from. People like you now clean
> our swimming pools. If you happen to work for one of the geeks who
> figured out how to how to really live well, you also clean up our used
> condoms and champagne bottles from those pools.

> Ironic that without us geeks, you wouldn't have the computers,
> internet or software you're using to post your flames. You also
> couldn't withdraw money (assuming you have any) from an ATM. Heck,
> you couldn't even place a phone call.

> Kenny - grab your pick-axe and get back to work.


True, Ron, but hey, you still haven't learned any social skills.

Ben
Future Assistant Pool Cleaner Trainee

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-3749B4.20255212042004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> I saw people on recumbents up in the hills where I ride three times
last
> year. One was a guy out near the coast, and I would have to assume he rode
> up over a hill to ge there. Another time was up on Tunitas Creek Road,
> which is a fairly tough climb. But as I approached, I noticed he was on
the
> small gear on the cluster and he wasn't always pedaling. He had some kind
> of motor under the bodywork. Lame... But the last one was a woman on a
> three wheeled one with hand cranks - I saw her up on the steepest part of
> Page Mill Road, in a section which is about an average of 8.5%. That
> impressed me.

I can't remember being outrun by a recumbent ever. I know there are fast
guys out there and fast recumbents but I've sure never seen them "in the
flesh".

I just ran into another one on a ride out to the coffee shop the other day.
He was riding on a pretty busy road with his head about at floor level of an
SUV and barely making 12 mph. When I saw a recumbent in the distance I
didn't expect to catch him since I was just taking it easy. After I caught
up with him he was riding one of those 3 wheelers that they sell out of the
Great Western Bicycle Rally every year.

Now last year I did ride with a recumbent rider that went up hills as fast
as I did but he didn't seem to descend as fast because being lower to the
ground he couldn't see around the corners as well. That was a novelty.

I rode a short wheelbase under-seat steeting recumbent around and I was
impressed with how easy they were to ride. But I didn't perceive any
advantage of it over an upright so why buy one? Besides the fact that it had
a million feet of chain that I could see flinging dirt everywhere.

Tom Kunich

"Pete" <ptr@usaf.com> wrote in message
news:P9Iec.8692$ci4.4956@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
>
> But you knew that, didn't you...

Not until you guys mentioned it.

> I don't know about you, but 30mph on the flat using just your arms sounds
> pretty good to me.

Sounds pretty good to me as well.

> What's with all this ragging on 'bents? They are merely another shape
> bike/trike. More comfortable for some, faster in some situations, slower
in
> others, totally unsuitable for other situations. So what?

Not ragging on them. Stating a fact - those people who claim that bents are
faster that standard bikes based on the results of speed contests involving
fully faired 'bents that require several people to get the rider installed,
upright and moving aren't the sort of people that you can count on for an
unbiased opinion.

We used to have one of those ultra marathoners here that developed some sort
of problem that required him to switch to a 'bent. I don't remember whether
it was medical or just that he thought that a 'bent would be better over
super long distances.

After several years of continuous competition he told us that his average
speed for distance on the 'bent was considerably slower than on an upright
bike. That was pretty strong evidence that 'bents are not faster on the
average.

> They are not the be all and end all of bike design. They are not the
'best'
> solution for all types of riding. But then again, no single bike design
is.

Agreed.

> Name one bike design that is good for everything. Some come closer than
> others, but none are good for all types of riding

I have 13 bikes in my garage. Who would WANT one bike for all things?

Richard

bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?

They are also bad for the spine.
-Rich

Tom Kunich

"Jay" <jay@siberian.org> wrote in message
news:BCA1EF01.34D17%jay@siberian.org...
>
> > bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message
> > news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
> >> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
> >> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
> >> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
> >> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?
>
> >Richard at rander3127@rogers.com wrote on 4/13/04 5:16 PM:
> > They are also bad for the spine.
>
> Could you supply your references to this statement?

Take a ride on one sometime. Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why do
you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?

References,,,,, like there's anyone interested enough in an extreme minority
piece of a minority sport to even bother looking into it.

Jay

> bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message
> news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
>> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
>> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
>> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
>> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?

>Richard at rander3127@rogers.com wrote on 4/13/04 5:16 PM:
> They are also bad for the spine.

Could you supply your references to this statement?