"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue"



Originally posted by Jobst Brandt
Tom Sherman writes:

>> I didn't see a picture of this tricycle but short
>> wheelbase recumbent bicycles, ones where pedal cranks are
>> ahead of the front wheel, do endo's more easily than a
>> conventional bicycle. Drawing a visual line from the
>> rider's belly button (rider CG) to the contact patch of
>> the front wheel shows that the CG is no better positioned
>> than that of a conventional bicycle and usually worse....

> Picture of my trike.

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/df1a.jpg

This picture could not be retrieved. The URL produces an
error.

> Mr. Brandt's comments on short wheelbase (SWB) recumbents
> indicate outdated and/or incomplete knowledge. The
> first regular production SWB recumbent was the
> Hypercycle. Among other design defects, the Hypercycle
> had a very long pedal boom, which meant that the rear
> wheel would lift easily when the front brake was
> applied, and hard braking could well launch the rider
> off the front of the bike in a near standing position
> and/or put the chainring into the ground.

> Better designed (not all, by any means) modern SWB
> recumbents have a static weight distribution of
> approximately 40%/60% front/rear and will not lift the
> rear wheel under hard braking. Here is one such common
> design that I have ridden extensively (including emergency
> braking) without ever lifting the rear wheel.

http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

This is the exact design to which I refer. Drawing a line
from the tire contact patch to the belly button of the
rider produces a steeper inclination than a conventional
bicycle. An endo was demonstrated by a rider who was
convinced it would not occur. He left the recumbent behind
as he went over the pedals to run down the parking lot. It
was a relatively benign dismount although the bicycle got a
few scrapes.

Don't try this at higher speeds.

> Here is a picture of the SWB recumbent I regularly use for
> longer rides:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg

> With the low seat height and short pedal boom, the angle
> formed by the ground, front tire contact patch, and
> combined bike/rider center of mass is very small. It would
> take sudden stoppage of the front wheel (e.g., wedged in a
> storm sewer inlet grating) for the rear wheel to lift off
> of the ground.

That is certainly a compendium of mechanical oddities,
unistrut fork, front spoke guard, primary and secondary
chains with cross-over and dual tensioners. The tiller style
steering is also unusual for using arm force while pedaling.
How do you keep pant legs out of the chain?

In the line with this thread, I cannot see riding this on
steep trails or trails at all for that matter.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

Dear Jobst,

I can't make the angles work out as you suggest.

In fact, an upright seems to have a steeper and
less effective braking angle from center of gravity
to contact patch, 61 degrees versus 54 degrees
for the recumbent.

Here's how I tried to figure the angles. I gather
that the ratio of the adjacent (longer) to the
opposite (shorter) legs of a right triangle should
give the tangent of the angle that I want.

http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

When I measure things for the recumbent from where
I expect the belly button to be to the contact patch,
I get a right triangle with an adjacent side of about
75mm on my screen and an opposite side of 55mm.

(If anything, the center of gravity should be further
back than the navel, given the rider's reclining
position.)

With 75/55 = 1.3636, my tangent-angle lookup shows
an angle of about 54 degrees.

When I look at "Bicycling Science" 2nd edition and
do the same thing for figure 8.6 (the upright bike
with numerous details and an indicated center of
gravity, page. 197), I get a 45-inch adjacent side
and a 25-inch opposite side, 45/25= 1.8, and my
tangent-angle lookup says about 61 degrees.

Here's the corrected address for the blue trike:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

Carl Fogel
 
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:53:42 -0800, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Chris B. wrote:
>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since most bike brakes are capable of skidding the
>>>> front wheel in most circs, all that better brakes give
>>>> you is finer control of braking force and less grip
>>>> effort.
>>>
>>> And less fade.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Brake fade is bad. If brakes give you less of it, it
>follows that they are better, all else being equal.

I agree but the implication was that disc brakes are more
fade resistant (all of the other points Guy mentioned were
positive traits of disc brakes), although this isn't clear
by looking at the quoted section. No doubt Guy will clarify
if he was instead referring to rim brakes. Again, I often
hear that disc brakes are less prone to fade resistant and I
wonder if it is true and why.
 
Originally posted by carlfogel
Dear Jobst,

I can't make the angles work out as you suggest.

In fact, an upright seems to have a steeper and
less effective braking angle from center of gravity
to contact patch, 61 degrees versus 54 degrees
for the recumbent.

Here's how I tried to figure the angles. I gather
that the ratio of the adjacent (longer) to the
opposite (shorter) legs of a right triangle should
give the tangent of the angle that I want.

http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

When I measure things for the recumbent from where
I expect the belly button to be to the contact patch,
I get a right triangle with an adjacent side of about
75mm on my screen and an opposite side of 55mm.

(If anything, the center of gravity should be further
back than the navel, given the rider's reclining
position.)

With 75/55 = 1.3636, my tangent-angle lookup shows
an angle of about 54 degrees.

When I look at "Bicycling Science" 2nd edition and
do the same thing for figure 8.6 (the upright bike
with numerous details and an indicated center of
gravity, page. 197), I get a 45-inch adjacent side
and a 25-inch opposite side, 45/25= 1.8, and my
tangent-angle lookup says about 61 degrees.

Here's the corrected address for the blue trike:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

Carl Fogel

Dear Jobst,

Aaaargh! My mother won't let me out without
my mittens on strings. A capital D may be needed
in "dragonflyer":

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

Carl oFelg
 
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:17:54 GMT, Chris B.
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

Sorry, that should read "I often hear that disc brakes are
less prone to fade and I wonder if it is true and why."
 
Tim McNamara wrote:

> [email protected] writes:

>>Changing the dropout is not a reasonable option because
>>the dropout would need to face upward, which would release
>>the wheel on normal wheel loads, while reversing loads of
>>rider and brake force, being opposite, could still cause
>>QR loosening. The dropout should be loaded in the same
>>direction at all times as it is with rim brakes.
>
>
> I was thinking of facing the open end of the dropouts
> forward, so that the normal load would be directed into
> the end of the fork leg, and the lower "jaw" of the
> dropout would constrain the braking force. This wouldn't
> be suitable?

It would still leave the alternating up/down forcing. Bolts
don't need to have a massively elongated slot to loosen in.
Probably it would reduce the magnitude of the problem, but
there is a simple solution that eliminates it.

James
 
Carl Fogel writes:

> I can't make the angles work out as you suggest.

> In fact, an upright seems to have a steeper and less
> effective braking angle from center of gravity to contact
> patch, 61 degrees versus 54 degrees for the recumbent.

> Here's how I tried to figure the angles. I gather that the
> ratio of the adjacent (longer) to the opposite (shorter)
> legs of a right triangle should give the tangent of the
> angle that I want.

> http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

> When I measure things for the recumbent from where I
> expect the belly button to be to the contact patch, I get
> a right triangle with an adjacent side of about 75mm on my
> screen and an opposite side of 55mm.

> (If anything, the center of gravity should be further back
> than the navel, given the rider's reclining position.)

> With 75/55 = 1.3636, my tangent-angle lookup shows an
> angle of about 54 degrees.

> When I look at "Bicycling Science" 2nd edition and do the
> same thing for figure 8.6 (the upright bike with numerous
> details and an indicated center of gravity, page. 197), I
> get a 45-inch adjacent side and a 25- inch opposite side,
> 45/25= 1.8, and my tangent-angle lookup says about 61
> degrees.

I think you'll find that with the legs forward as in the
recumbent, the CG lies ahead of the usual middle of the gut
or belly button, the body being angled similarly to that of
an upright rider except that the heavier part is more
forward. The angle for the short wheel base recumbent isn't
any better than that of the conventional bicycle and in the
case of the one in question, it did an endo surprisingly
easy in the parking lot test.

> Here's the corrected address for the blue trike:

> http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

For some reason that URL doesn't work and returns a message:

"I am sorry, the URL you are looking for could not be
found."

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
Tim McNamara writes:

>>> I don't know but do suspect that changing the dropout
>>> design might be the easier solution, and I don't know
>>> but do suspect that changing the location of the brake
>>> would be the better solution.

>> If you consider forks without offset at the dropout end,
>> as they are commonly made today, where offset is achieved
>> at the fork crown, No change other than placing the
>> mounting lugs for the disc brake caliper on the front
>> side is required. I think the same caliper would be
>> adequate for most brands with the distance between
>> caliper and fork leg remaining as it is today. This
>> requires a new fork strut anyway.

>> Changing the dropout is not a reasonable option because
>> the dropout would need to face upward, which would
>> release the wheel on normal wheel loads, while reversing
>> loads of rider and brake force, being opposite, could
>> still cause QR loosening. The dropout should be loaded in
>> the same direction at all times as it is with rim brakes.

> I was thinking of facing the open end of the dropouts
> forward, so that the normal load would be directed into
> the end of the fork leg, and the lower "jaw" of the
> dropout would constrain the braking force. This wouldn't
> be suitable?

As I said, I believe that as long as there is a large
reversing load on that joint it has the ability to loosen a
threaded fastener. Now is not the time to introduce half
baked solutions, especially if it requires changing the
fork anyway.

Besides, I like QR's and they are not in contention
with any solution other than positioning the caliper
ahead of the fork.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
Originally posted by Jobst Brandt
Carl Fogel writes:

> I can't make the angles work out as you suggest.

> In fact, an upright seems to have a steeper and less
> effective braking angle from center of gravity to contact
> patch, 61 degrees versus 54 degrees for the recumbent.

> Here's how I tried to figure the angles. I gather that the
> ratio of the adjacent (longer) to the opposite (shorter)
> legs of a right triangle should give the tangent of the
> angle that I want.

> http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

> When I measure things for the recumbent from where I
> expect the belly button to be to the contact patch, I get
> a right triangle with an adjacent side of about 75mm on my
> screen and an opposite side of 55mm.

> (If anything, the center of gravity should be further back
> than the navel, given the rider's reclining position.)

> With 75/55 = 1.3636, my tangent-angle lookup shows an
> angle of about 54 degrees.

> When I look at "Bicycling Science" 2nd edition and do the
> same thing for figure 8.6 (the upright bike with numerous
> details and an indicated center of gravity, page. 197), I
> get a 45-inch adjacent side and a 25- inch opposite side,
> 45/25= 1.8, and my tangent-angle lookup says about 61
> degrees.

I think you'll find that with the legs forward as in the
recumbent, the CG lies ahead of the usual middle of the gut
or belly button, the body being angled similarly to that of
an upright rider except that the heavier part is more
forward. The angle for the short wheel base recumbent isn't
any better than that of the conventional bicycle and in the
case of the one in question, it did an endo surprisingly
easy in the parking lot test.

> Here's the corrected address for the blue trike:

> http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

For some reason that URL doesn't work and returns a message:

"I am sorry, the URL you are looking for could not be
found."

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

Dear Jobst,

Here's a double-size picture of the rocket
recumbent with dreadfully artistic lines
and angles calculated off x-y pixel positions.

If anything, it looks as if it would brake even
better than I originally thought--about a 50
degree angle from COG to contact patch versus
61 degrees for the upright with an almost
identical wheelbase in "Bicycling Science."

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/rocketdiagram.jpg

or

http://tinyurl.com/yrtgo

Possibly the recumbent that you remember
wasn't quite identical to this one?

As for Tom's elusive blue Dragonflyer, there are
a dozen lurid views here:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer

Yes, double-checked that one. (Sorry about my
incorrect corrections of addresses.) This picture
gives an almost side-view:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df2.jpg

Weird-lookin' thing!

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I think you'll find that with the legs forward as in the
> recumbent, the CG lies ahead of the usual middle of the
> gut or belly button, the body being angled similarly to
> that of an upright rider except that the heavier part is
> more forward. The angle for the short wheel base recumbent
> isn't any better than that of the conventional bicycle and
> in the case of the one in question, it did an endo
> surprisingly easy in the parking lot test.

I have verified that one can lock and skid the front wheel
during hard braking on a classic LWB design such as the one
pictured below. Such a bike stops alarmingly fast on clean
dry pavement when both brakes are applied just short of
locking the wheels.

http://www.easyracers.com/images/riding.jpg
http://www.easyracers.com/images/riding2.jpg

This bike does pretty well on dirt roads and trails, too.

http://tinyurl.com/3ge8o

--
Bill Bushnell
 
[email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >But your attitude seems to be, we could lift a finger,
>> >but we don't want to spend the money. Better that our
>> >customers should pay the price for our stupidity. Isn't
>> >that what you're saying? -- we could fix the problem,
>> >but we won't. The only costs will be born by someone
>> >else. We don't mind killing off a few customers as long
>> >as it doesn't hurt our bottom line.
>> <snip>
>> >I'm quite surprised to see you pursue this line. All I
>> >can say is that if this is your idea of customer
>> >service, then I'll never buy one of your frames.
>>
>> Your (il)logical conclusions and inability to understand
>> my position are astonishing. You really "don't get it",
>> do you?
>
>Well, I should have been more temporate, for civility's
>sake. Nonetheless, I think your position is contrary to the
>law and morally obtuse. I find it troubling that you
>haven't responded to a question I've posed a couple of
>times: does the industry have a duty to warn its customers
>about this problem?

My "position" is that the manufacturers and CPSC probably
don't think there IS a problem, and I'd like to see that
remedied by collecting some data that might influence them
(assuming of course that it shows there IS a problem).

And FWIW, I don't have a "position" on how the rest of the
industry handles potential liability. I have observations,
which I shared and you subsequently ascribed to springing
from my own moral code.

Does the industry have a duty to warn customers NOW? I don't
know... it all depends on how compelling the data they have
is. I have no problem at all believing the data they have
right now doesn't compel them to do an expensive recall / or
to scare existing customers. I say that because (as I've
said about a hundred times now...) they've all heard about
skewers spontaneously unscrewing themselves, and a few
reports of this happening to customers with disc brakes
won't stand out as anything particularly unusual, barring
more data.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
the $695 ti frame
 
Originally posted by carlfogel
Dear Jobst,

Here's a double-size picture of the rocket
recumbent with dreadfully artistic lines
and angles calculated off x-y pixel positions.

If anything, it looks as if it would brake even
better than I originally thought--about a 50
degree angle from COG to contact patch versus
61 degrees for the upright with an almost
identical wheelbase in "Bicycling Science."

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/rocketdiagram.jpg

or

http://tinyurl.com/yrtgo

Possibly the recumbent that you remember
wasn't quite identical to this one?

As for Tom's elusive blue Dragonflyer, there are
a dozen lurid views here:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer

Yes, double-checked that one. (Sorry about my
incorrect corrections of addresses.) This picture
gives an almost side-view:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df2.jpg

Weird-lookin' thing!

Carl Fogel

And here's the 60-61 degree diagram adapted
from Bicycling Science 2nd edition:

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/roadbikediagram.jpg

or

http://tinyurl.com/3hml2

The angle from the center of gravity looks about
ten degrees steeper than the rocket recumbent.

Carl Fogel
 
Originally posted by Bill Bushnell
[email protected] wrote:
> I think you'll find that with the legs forward as in the
> recumbent, the CG lies ahead of the usual middle of the
> gut or belly button, the body being angled similarly to
> that of an upright rider except that the heavier part is
> more forward. The angle for the short wheel base recumbent
> isn't any better than that of the conventional bicycle and
> in the case of the one in question, it did an endo
> surprisingly easy in the parking lot test.

I have verified that one can lock and skid the front wheel
during hard braking on a classic LWB design such as the one
pictured below. Such a bike stops alarmingly fast on clean
dry pavement when both brakes are applied just short of
locking the wheels.

http://www.easyracers.com/images/riding.jpg
http://www.easyracers.com/images/riding2.jpg

This bike does pretty well on dirt roads and trails, too.

http://tinyurl.com/3ge8o

--
Bill Bushnell

Dear Bill,

That stretch limo recumbent (long wheel base, to
use the proper terminology) certainly looks as if
the angle from the center of mass around your
belly button to the contact patch is less than
45 degrees, even shallower and more effective
than the short wheelbase Rocket that Tom Sherman
pointed out at around 50 degrees, and far better
than the classic upright in "Bicycling Science" at
around 61 degrees.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel
 
Carl Fogel writes:

> Here's a double-size picture of the rocket recumbent with
> dreadfully artistic lines and angles calculated off x-y
> pixel positions.

> If anything, it looks as if it would brake even better
> than I originally thought--about a 50 degree angle from
> COG to contact patch versus 61 degrees for the upright
> with an almost identical wheelbase in "Bicycling Science."

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/rocketdiagram.j-
pg

Good work. That's about what I suspected but then sitting
rigidly on the seat on this thing may be the difference. In
any case, a good grab on th brakes will turn it over. That
doesn't mean it is unstable or dangerous in use, only that
it can upend and that I wouldn't want to ride it down a
steep bumpy trail. We were talking about braking on steep
rough terrain when recumbents got introduced to the thread.

> Possibly the recumbent that you remember wasn't quite
> identical to this one?

I think it was very much the same.

> As for Tom's elusive blue Dragonflyer, there are a dozen
> lurid views here:

> http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer

> Yes, double-checked that one. (Sorry about my incorrect
> corrections of addresses.) This picture gives an almost
> side-view:

> http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df2.jpg

Well that one's out of contention on trails. They aren't
called single track for nothing.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> I see -- your question was a little unspecific. It would
> surprise me to find that disc brakes were less prone to
> fade, since they appear to have much less surface area
> available for heat dissipation, but there may be other
> factors I'm overlooking. They certainly must reduce the
> chances of tire blow-off due to heating of rims, but this
> is a different question.

That's certainly my experience. Because you have much more
discretion in the choice of disc material and brake pad
material than you do with rim brakes you can chose
arrangements that are less prone to fade. Heat is not an
issue - remember Formula One brakes work best when they are
glowing red hot - with the right materials choices.

Tony
 
"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >> Since most bike brakes are capable of skidding the
> >> front wheel in most circs, all that better brakes give
> >> you is finer control of braking force and less grip
> >> effort.

> >And less fade.

> Why?

Pad compounds and steel rotors is my guess. The steel rotor
means you can use a much more aggressive compound without
worrying about wear. But it works: braking at 40mph on rim
brakes produces a lovely smell of melting phenolic resins
and no noticeable deceleration, same with discs results in
Major Stopping Power.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> braking at 40mph on rim brakes produces a lovely smell of
> melting phenolic resins and no noticeable deceleration

You're doing it wrong then. The rim brakes on our tandem
have done hard stops from > 50mph more than once (feature of
having steep hills with a nasty sharp corner at the bottom!)

(maguras, black or red compound - the latter is the same as
the koolstop salmon and is what's on it at the moment).

cheers, clive
 
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:

>Chris B. wrote:

>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since most bike brakes are capable of skidding the
>>>> front wheel in most circs, all that better brakes give
>>>> you is finer control of braking force and less grip
>>>> effort.
>>>
>>> And less fade.
>>
>> Why?

>Brake fade is bad. If brakes give you less of it, it
>follows that they are better, all else being equal.

>I assume Chris Malcolm wasn't including dry pavement when
>he said "most bike brakes are capable of skidding the
>front wheel in most circs". On dry pavement the limiting
>factor is nearly always geometry rather than traction or
>"brake power".

Sorry, strictly speaking I should have said "skidding or
toppling you over the handelbars, whichever comes first".

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> "Compelling is in the eye of the beholder" seems to be
> what you're suggesting. Fair enough, I think. In the case
> of the manufacturers, I suspect that "compelling" is going
> to be equated with "massive product liability if we don't
> immediately fix it" and they don't see that yet. I think
> they're burying their heads, but that's between
> themselves, their lawyers and their liability insurance
> carriers. In the meantime, the users of these products are
> the ones assuming the risk.

From the replys and lack of replies I had to the question I
asked earlier "Compelling" would seem to require at least
having one person from the many tens of thousand mountain
bikers out there using discs reporting to a manufacturer
that they have experienced a problem of this nature with
their product. So far it looks as if no-one has done that in
which case it would not be unreasonable for them to assume
that whatever the theory, across a large population sample
it is not happening in practice.

Have a look at the number of bicycle related CPSC actions
and recalls (http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/recalldb/prod.asp,
choose Bicycles and Accessories and click Find)and ask why
on earth would they ignore this particular problem when
handlebars, forks, stems, helmets, whole bicycles, disc
brake rotors etc are being recalled all the time, sometimes
at quite considerable financial cost to the manufacturer.
Either it is a massively complex and coordinated conspiracy
involving multiple companies across the globe and the US
government or there is a simpler answer.

Tony