Pedal Forward Bike

Chalo Colina said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

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

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

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

Paul Cassel said:

Chalo said:

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

Officer Bob Hunt said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

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

aka Frank Krygowski said:

DougC said:

... 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

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

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.

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Officer Bob Hunt said:

On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Mike Kruger said:

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden] 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

In article <[email hidden]>,

DougC said:

Chalo said:

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

Michael Press said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.
~

Michael Press said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.
~

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.
~

DougC said:

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

DougC said:

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.

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

aka Frank Krygowski said:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785

Quoted message said:

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

DougC said:

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 :-)

Quoted message said:

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

DougC said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.
~