Dual-position bent: my latest brainstorm

"Carol Cohen" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to
it. One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with
the handlebars on steeper uphills.

Well by squinting at my Tour Easy I can see two problems. If the handlebars are to clear your body
when standing on the pedals you would have a hard time reaching them. Also getting from a seated
position to upright would be dicey IMHO. Not to mention how awful it would look with a big handlebar
sticking way up in the air. Maybe disguise it with a flag.

I kinda like this solution Dave Larrington posted a link to last time we had this discussion:
velolution.co.ukvelolution.co.ukOpen ↗

And some more transformers geocities.comconvertibles.htmOpen ↗

Mikael

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Carol Cohen
Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to it.
One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with the
handlebars on steeper uphills.

i.u.

I'm doing the same but starting with an upright folder.
Retaining the current BB, retaining low gear ratios with the upright cranks. Adding a boom with high ratios on that crank.
Bent seating, upright standing. SWB folding bent climber.
If you don't want a folder, make a CLWB FS mountain bent.

[email hidden] (Carol Cohen) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to
it. One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with
the handlebars on steeper uphills.

C.C.

Hi Carol: My two cents. I think in the stand up mode all the weight would be on the front wheel
and would be difficult to steer. Not sure but I don't think that the bottom bracket would stand
up to the stand up weight and torque.Do you plan on going to stand up on the fly or stopping and
then standing? To my thinking it seems like it would be difficult to stand on the fly as the
stand up handle bars would really have to be super stout for one to pull the body up into a
standing position.

[email hidden] (Carol Cohen) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to
it. One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with
the handlebars on steeper uphills.

C.C.

You would need the BB to be lower than the Linear BB, and you would need the BB to be further back
from the head tube. This is why most of the people who do these end up with two BB's, i.e. so they
can get the right position relative to the headset for each position. George Reynolds has done one,
but I can't find any photos. Seems like there was a UK one by someone named Riley (NR) a couple
years back, but I can't find a photo of that either. It was probably in BCQ.

Meanwhile re folders:

eland.uklinux.netshow comments.plOpen ↗

John Riley

[email hidden] (Carol Cohen) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to
it. One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with
the handlebars on steeper uphills.

C.C.

Joe Kochanowski's built one: outsideconnection.com2position down.jpgOpen ↗
outsideconnection.com2position up.jpgOpen ↗

and I think Reynolds built a prototype- although I can't find a photo.

Jeff

[email hidden] (Carol Cohen) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tell me why this wouldn't work: (before I put money and/or effort into
it)

Get a longwheelbase underseat-steering bike such as a used Linear, and add a front handlebar to
it. One sits and uses the USS on levels and downhills and mild uphills, one stands and steers with
the handlebars on steeper uphills.

C.C.

There is a dicycle kinetic sculpture vehicle called KILLER TOMATOES that has this configuration. It
worked quite well as an all terrain dicycle vehicle. Dicycle means two wheels side by side. As a
bicycle it places too much weight on the front wheel. With all that weight on the front wheel it
would be too difficult to ride the regular bike position over bumps or climb things like curbs.

(Jeff Wills) said:

and I think Reynolds built a prototype- although I can't find a photo.

There's a small photo on this page, near the bottom:
bentrideronline.comgeorgereynolds.htmOpen ↗

Two sets of cranks, one handlebar.

Ken Kobayashi [email hidden] solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jppersonalOpen ↗

[email hidden] (john riley) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile re folders:

eland.uklinux.netshow comments.plOpen ↗

whoops, wrong link. Here is the folder link:

eland.uklinux.netshow comments.plOpen ↗

john riley

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

Quoted message said:

I'm doing the same but starting with an upright folder. Retaining the current BB, retaining low
gear ratios with the upright cranks. Adding a boom with high ratios on that crank. Bent
seating, upright standing. SWB folding bent climber. If you don't want a folder, make a CLWB FS
mountain bent.

I'm not sure what you mean by adding a "boom with high ratios" to the existing crank. Can you
explain further?

Meb, after today's tryout of a folding semi-bent, my mind is heading in a this direction: get an
upright folder (both for the convenience of being able to fold it up to travel on planes & buses and
for the lowslung frame and smaller wheels than a regular upright) and fit it out with a recumbent
type seat behind the regular seat (so one's feet still hit the pedals at the right distance for
one's leg length).

Sometimes when I see an upright bike with an unoccupied baby seat behind the saddle, I wonder how
that would work. Just slide backwards off the saddle and onto the recumbent seat. But a 2-year-old's
hip width being slightly smaller than my own, I never could squeeze into the plastic seat frame for
the experiment.

C.C.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Carol Cohen
meb <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm doing the same but starting with an upright folder. Retaining the current BB, retaining low
gear ratios with the upright cranks. Adding a boom with high ratios on that crank. Bent
seating, upright standing. SWB folding bent climber. If you don't want a folder, make a CLWB FS
mountain bent.

I'm not sure what you mean by adding a "boom with high ratios" to the existing crank. Can you
explain further?

Meb, after today's tryout of a folding semi-bent, my mind is heading in a this direction: get an
upright folder (both for the convenience of being able to fold it up to travel on planes & buses and
for the lowslung frame and smaller wheels than a regular upright) and fit it out with a recumbent
type seat behind the regular seat (so one's feet still hit the pedals at the right distance for
one's leg length).

Sometimes when I see an upright bike with an unoccupied baby seat behind the saddle, I wonder how
that would work. Just slide backwards off the saddle and onto the recumbent seat. But a 2-year-old's
hip width being slightly smaller than my own, I never could squeeze into the plastic seat frame for
the experiment.

C.C.

I have 29-44 gear inches currently with my folders-pretty good for climbing hills, but not much for the flats. I intend to retain the BB, replace the 44T single crankset with a 30/39/52 triple. Mount a SWB boom with a 60T Single crank. Drive the 30T triple with the 60T boom chainring, use the 39 & 52 to drive the rear derailleur.

New: 26-52 gear inches lower pedals; 52-104 gear inches boom pedals.

I deemed it impractical to use redundant seats. The upright bike pedals have the edge on recumbent pedals when standing for climbing anyway, so I’ll stand when using the upright pedals with their low gear ratios, I’ll use the recumbent seat and better aerodynamics when using the boom pedals.

Note: a 2:1 ratio on mid-drive driven chainring (in sprocket function) to boom chainring means my pedals are in sync amongst both booms so I can keep track of my low pedal on the lower BB and avoid hitting the pavement with the pedal on a turn when using the Recumbent pedals. My preference is to have the lower pedals level when the upper pedals are at 3,6,9, and 12 o’clock positions.

The boom will initially be detachable, foldable once the optimal location is established- this is intended as a folder upgrade first, recumbent second. My folders have their own carrying bags, I’d like to be able to continue to fit the bike in the carrying bag.

Conversion 2, FWD-will have less friction from driving two chains concurrently since the unused chain will be freewheeling, but it’s harder to implement fwd conversions.

Here’s some fwd conversions/homebuilt links. Traylor sells plans.

http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~urieli/hpv/g5.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com

http://home.comcast.net/~r.desmarais

I wouldn't want the extra weight of 2 seats and 2 steering systems.