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 indicate outdated and/or incomplete knowledge.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