Hit gravel, broke leg

Ron Teplitz said:

I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my
Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down
fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street.
The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about
12 mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and
broke a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes.

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

Ron

The only bike I've ever crashed at speed is my 622/451 SWB, and it was
while going straight on a dry road. I probably lost control when I
wasn't paying full attention and maybe hit a pot hole or a road seam on
the edge. My other bikes have been either DFs, a 406/349 CLWB and a
dual-571 SWB.

I wouldn't say that this means a big/small SWB is more likely to go down
when the front wheel is purturbed though.

Out of curiosity, what was it about this particular crash that led to
your broken leg vs. your usual road rash?

Did you unclip and your leg got caught under the bike? Leg suck?

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

Quoted message said:

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

I think it is a matter of weight distribution. LWB bikes are
relatively lightly loaded on the front end and so the front will slide
around more easily. SWBs tend to have more weight on the front wheel
so they tend to be less likely to slide around. The back wheel will
slide, and if starting hard on a unstable surface, you can easily spin
the rear wheel.

My SWB bike has never had a front wheel slide problem that I can
recall.

On unstable surfaces like gravel, just about any bike is liable to be
a problem, unless it has fat tires.

On 06/04/2005 05:34:54 (Ron Teplitz) said:

I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my
Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down
fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street.
The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about 12
mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and broke
a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes.

Quoted message said:

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

Quoted message said:

Ron

Have you cosidered a trike, you do not even have to unclip at junctions, and sliding can even be fun.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Ron Teplitz said:

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

I suspect that there's more to it than just being SWB or not. I ride my
(SWB) Streetmachine over gravel quite a bit, simply on the grounds that
our house is on an unpaved lane and if I didn't I'd have to walk the
last 100m home every time I took it out... It's a little harder to hold
it together than the wedgies going uphill (though not to the point of
throwing control), but not really much difference going down beyond
differences caused by speed (I go faster on the 'bent thanks to the full
sus!).

I think I'd find the same sort of thing significantly harder on a Baron,
or a full-on DF racer, in the latter case because the tyres are
singularly hopeless for anything much that might move a little.

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

Ron Teplitz said:

was going in a straight line at about 12 mph, rode into
a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and
broke a leg.

Six years and one week ago, I went down in a right turn going too fast
on my M5 CMPCT, and broke my right leg at the ankle due to the dreaded
"leg suck". Unlike your case, there was no gravel or any other road
condition responsible, only my own poor judgement of my speed. I've done
similar stunts [without as severe an injury] on my Tour Easy and on
various hunker-bikes, so I can't blame the bike [although my wife does].

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

Victor Kan _UCEloopdrive.net said:

Ron Teplitz said:

I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my
Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down
fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street.
The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about
12 mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and
broke a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes.

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

Ron

The only bike I've ever crashed at speed is my 622/451 SWB, and it was
while going straight on a dry road. I probably lost control when I
wasn't paying full attention and maybe hit a pot hole or a road seam on
the edge. My other bikes have been either DFs, a 406/349 CLWB and a
dual-571 SWB.

I wouldn't say that this means a big/small SWB is more likely to go down
when the front wheel is purturbed though.

Out of curiosity, what was it about this particular crash that led to
your broken leg vs. your usual road rash?

Did you unclip and your leg got caught under the bike? Leg suck?

Victor,

Can't say much about why the outcome of this fall was worse. No leg
suck. Every other time I went to the left and put my forearm on the
street. This last time I went to the right and landed on the sidewalk.
Perhaps I could slide better on asphalt than on brushed concrete and
hence received lighter injury.

Ron

"Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Have you cosidered a trike, you do not even have to unclip at junctions,
and sliding can even be fun.

Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not stable
at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at high
speed).

I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been
nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was
going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike was
handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect of
brake-steer is magnified at high speed. I ended up flipping the trike. A had
a little road rash and the trike was fine (I was more concerned about the
trike).

I've been wondering if quads are more stable but I'm starting to come to the
conclusion that two wheel vehicles actually do better at high speeds.

The only times I every feel off of any of my recumbent bikes was when I was
going up very steep hills and couldn't go fast enough to maintain my
balance. This has never happened to me on a trike (obviously).

Jeff

On 06/07/2005 13:57:52 'Jeff Grippe said:

"Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you cosidered a trike, you do not even have to unclip at junctions,
and sliding can even be fun.

Quoted message said:

Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not
stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at
high speed).

Quoted message said:

I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been
nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was
going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike
was handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect
of brake-steer is magnified at high speed. I ended up flipping the trike.
A had a little road rash and the trike was fine (I was more concerned
about the trike).

Quoted message said:

I've been wondering if quads are more stable but I'm starting to come to
the conclusion that two wheel vehicles actually do better at high speeds.

Quoted message said:

The only times I every feel off of any of my recumbent bikes was when I
was going up very steep hills and couldn't go fast enough to maintain my
balance. This has never happened to me on a trike (obviously).

Quoted message said:

Jeff

You should try the Catrike Speed, by the way this isn't a plug, well it is but only because I have such high regard for them.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Jeff Grippe said:

Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not stable
at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at high
speed).

The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record
in the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on
the course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular
instability AFAIK.

Quoted message said:

I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been
nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was
going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike was
handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect of
brake-steer is magnified at high speed.

Folk regularly do *much* more than that on trikes, so it clearly isn't
intrinsic to trikes, period. Same thing with brake steer: it'll very
much be implementation dependent.

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

"Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You should try the Catrike Speed, by the way this isn't a plug, well it is
but only because I have such high regard for them.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Grippe said:

Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not
stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at
high speed).

The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record in
the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on the
course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular instability
AFAIK.

I did a test ride on the Catrike. There was something about the steering
assembly that gave it a feel that I didn't like. On the same day I test rode
the Greenspeed, WizWheelz (3.4 version), Hase, Trice, and Sun trikes. I have
no idea how stable any of them are at high speeds because the 1 mile test
ride that I took didn't really have any place where I could get up to high
speeds. The Greenspeed was far and away my favorite. It was comfortable,
rode well, and I really like the use of the internal gears (on the 81 speed
version) to give you a low range that you could shift into while standing
still.

As for the WindCheetah, I own one (I have a "For Trade" posting in this NG).
It has kind of the opposite problem. The steering is so sensitive that there
is a control issue at high speed. Very little movement of the stick produces
a great deal of turning. On my very first test ride in a parking lot I
managed to do too tight a turn and have one wheel off the ground. The wheels
are also very close to my chubby legs. I'm not (yet) comfortable with
operating it above 25 MPH. It really is much more of a performance machine
that I actually need. No nibbles on the trade offer so I'll probably put
different size cogs on it and call it a keeper. There is virtually no brake
steer, however. I will probably get more comfortable with it over time.

Jeff

On 06/07/2005 15:29:22 'Jeff Grippe said:

As for the WindCheetah, I own one (I have a "For Trade" posting in this
NG). It has kind of the opposite problem. The steering is so sensitive
that there is a control issue at high speed. Very little movement of the
stick produces a great deal of turning. On my very first test ride in a
parking lot I managed to do too tight a turn and have one wheel off the
ground. The wheels are also very close to my chubby legs. I'm not (yet)
comfortable with operating it above 25 MPH. It really is much more of a
performance machine that I actually need. No nibbles on the trade offer
so I'll probably put different size cogs on it and call it a keeper.
There is virtually no brake steer, however. I will probably get more
comfortable with it over time.

Quoted message said:

Jeff

Maybe you should look at the new Catrike Road with indirect steering.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Quoted message said:

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

In my big SWB crash of last year, I went down due to severe rear wheel
wobble trying to brake downhill on poor pavement heading into a curve.
On a SWB, I have to be careful not to lock the rear wheel which is
more lightly loaded under braking downhill than the front.

In my big crash (so far) of this year, the front tire and tube blew
while going heavy on the front brake down a twisty 14% paved downgrade.
After last year's crash I was trying to focus on using the front
brake mostly and either due to a clincher tire or tube defect or due to
rim
heating there was a kaboom and down I went.

As undesirable as they have been (an average of one fall of any kind
per 2,000 miles), fortunately each time the fall distance has been short
with the only significant injury being road rash for the two cites
crashes.

One of my falls was when the short dirt road I was slowly going
down became soft sand. But with dual 1 1/4" tires is this really a
surprise? Now I watch for this condition like I have always kept an
eye out for potholes, etc. having a 20" front wheel. But on another ride
I rounded a corner on a paved bike path and hit slick mud washed
down the side bank across the path. I did skid big time but
while my mind based on past crashes thought about
bracing for falling over I was able to hold it and made it through
upright.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Grippe said:

Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not
stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at
high speed).

The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record in
the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on the
course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular instability
AFAIK.

Quoted message said:

I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been
nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was
going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike
was handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect
of brake-steer is magnified at high speed.

Folk regularly do *much* more than that on trikes, so it clearly isn't
intrinsic to trikes, period. Same thing with brake steer: it'll very much
be implementation dependent.

Pete.

Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about most
everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal
steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience and do
not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much better at
speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you keep your speed
reasonable.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

On 06/08/2005 03:34:58 'Edward Dolan said:

Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about most
everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal
steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience and
do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much
better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you
keep your speed reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Quoted message said:

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

LOL- Dolan the oracle, the world is ending.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Edward Dolan said:

Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about
most everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due
to pedal steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own
experience and do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will
always handle much better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes
are OK provided you keep your speed reasonable.

But one doesn't get pedal steer when freewheeling... These days I'm a lot
happier to to do insane speeds on three wheels rather than two.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Trike Vmax current 86 km/h

C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't
really useful concepts here.

In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had up
to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. Now I haven't tried every
trike out there at high speed and there could be some things I don't know
about riding them (yet!).

That having been said I will never go back to two wheels. I've been able to
climb things with my trike that I'm not sure I could walk up.

I don't know if any of the tadpoles are better than any other tadpoles at
high speed. I would guess that since the basic geometry is similar that they
have similar handling characteristics. Probably a really long wheel base and
wide front wheels would improve things. It would weigh a ton and be
impossible to transport but it would be stable.

Does anyone know if quads have the same stability problems?

Jeff
"Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 06/08/2005 03:34:58 'Edward Dolan said:

Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about
most
everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal
steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience
and
do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much
better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you
keep your speed reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Quoted message said:

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

LOL- Dolan the oracle, the world is ending.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

On 06/08/2005 10:35:15 'Jeff Grippe' jeff@door7 said:

C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't
really useful concepts here.

Quoted message said:

In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had
up to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. Now I haven't tried
every trike out there at high speed and there could be some things I don't
know about riding them (yet!).

Quoted message said:

That having been said I will never go back to two wheels. I've been able
to climb things with my trike that I'm not sure I could walk up.

Quoted message said:

I don't know if any of the tadpoles are better than any other tadpoles at
high speed. I would guess that since the basic geometry is similar that
they have similar handling characteristics. Probably a really long wheel
base and wide front wheels would improve things. It would weigh a ton and
be impossible to transport but it would be stable.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know if quads have the same stability problems?

Quads are usually very heavy, The steering issue with Catrike Speed stems from it having direct steering, the 2003 model did have a lot of pedal and brake steer but this has been dialed out with the new frame geometry, the Windcheetah likewise requires little steering input to affect large changes in course, the answer to that problem is experience.
You get pedal steer on two wheel bents as well as trikes, it is down to not having a smooth cadence, there are trikes around with slower steering, the Trice, Greenspeed and the new Catrike Road all use indirect steering for more touring orientated trikes and as such require more steering input to affect direction. I ride a Speed and often exceed 50mph with no problems at all and anyone who has ridden in England will tell you we do not have the best surfaces in the world, but I do have a huge mileage behind me.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Ron Teplitz said:

I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my
Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down
fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street.
The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about
12 mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and
broke a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes.

Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a
wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions?
Experiences?

Ron

I have one SWB I bought about a year ago, and have test-rode a few other
SWB's and other two-wheelers as well. I notice this too on mine, when I
ride through somewhat-deep gravel the front wheel creeps/slides
left-and-right, even though I hold the steering in a straight line. And
this gravel would be NOTHING on a upright road or MTB, so I think it is
caused by heavily-loaded small front wheels. On a couple test-rides, I
have slightly felt the other recumbent bikes (that I did not buy) do the
same thing. And of course braking makes that problem even worse. Also I
notice that most-all recumbents (at least, the ones with small front
wheels that I rode) could not be ridden hands-free. So I think a tiny
front wheel just does not stabilize as well as a big wheel does. ,,,,
And I kind of like the Rans crank-forwad bikes. But the first year they
came out, they had a little 20" wheel on the front, but Rans changed
that to a big wheel. Coincidence? I think not. ---- My SWB is a 20/26",
by the by. ---- ....I would suggest a LWB or a CLWB, I want to buy
another bent for guests to ride on but would not get another SWB for
that, I would get a LWB or CLWB. The longer bikes feel much more stable
overall, the SWB's are very jittery. Some people could get on mine and
ride it quickly (with platform pedals on it) but they wandered around a
lot, because of the lack of steering stability. ----- I think the
"most-stable" recumbent would be a LWB with big wheels, 700's or 26's.
At least one company makes one [I don't recall who, but I've seen their
website ], maybe two companies doing it but not very many though. --Or,
one could I suppose get a regular small-front-wheel LWB and try putting
a long fork and big wheel on the front.... ? Some people do this to turn
a "general-purpose" SWB into a high-racer.

DougC said:

notice that most-all recumbents (at least, the ones with small front
wheels that I rode) could not be ridden hands-free. So I think a tiny
front wheel just does not stabilize as well as a big wheel does.

I think it's probably more to do with fork trail than directly with
wheel size.

Quoted message said:

that, I would get a LWB or CLWB. The longer bikes feel much more stable
overall, the SWB's are very jittery.

Though the longer wheelbase machines I've ridden have been /more/
stable, that's not the same as SWB machines being problematically
unstable by design IME. I've ridden very jittery ones and many very
much less jittery ones. Having ridden a Speedmachine with two different
handlebar styles on an otherwise identical bike I know that jitter can
be caused in part by the rider and how they personally interface with
the cycle: I don't get on that well with tiller steering, but I know
that's me rather than the system being fundamentally hopeless.

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