alternate theories about why recumbents don't sell

[[email protected]]

DougC wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > No, it's a sad fact given the physics of this particular universe. If
> > you apply force downward on the pedals, you will naturally apply less
> > downward force on the seat.
> >
> So, tell me: if a casual 150-lb rider is tottering along at a casual
> pace, say 12-15 MPH, over level ground, how much downward force (in
> pounds) would they have to apply to the pedals? I'd bet not a whole lot;
> less than 20 lbs perhaps? 15 lbs maybe?

Not a whole lot. But you certainly can't pretend _all_ their weight is
on the seat!

>
> > And not all riders choose to support part of their weight on the
> > handlebars. "Sit up and beg" posture is normal for many cyclists. For
> > example, look at the girl in this photo: http://tinyurl.com/yqccja
> >
> Charmingly enough--this photo also blows a big hole in the "levitating
> bicyclist" silliness, at least among one casual rider. The rider is not
> leaning forward at all, so she cannot be supporting her weight partly
> with her arm(s).

The silliness is yours. AFAIK, casual utility riders are not told they
must "levitate." They just buy their bikes and pedal away, upright and
happy.

For example, I don't think the girl in the picture is in agony! She
_could_ be phoning the bike store to complain about the terrible design
of the bike they just sold her, and its effect on her tortured nether
parts, but I highly doubt it.

Again: Posture on the bike depends on the rider's objectives. For
longer, faster rides, cyclists learn that leaning forward decreases air
resistance and aids comfort. There are no significant disadvantages,
so it's a winning strategy. It's cheefully discovered by every
eight-year-old racing his buddy.

But utility potterers and neighborhood cruisers don't ride far enough
or fast enough to need those benefits. They don't stay on the bike
long enough to suffer any discomfort at all.

That's why they disappoint you. They don't clamor for recumbents. For
most people, recumbents are a solution to a non-problem.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Sorry, but that's ********. You're describing ordinary cycling as a
> > masochistic experience. But my ordinary riding is NOT painful. It's
> > not uncomfortable in the least.
> >
> I'm not talking about any one person's experience; I am talking about a
> collective number of people who buy hybrid and comfort bikes, and a
> bunch of companies selling bikes in the USA who make them.
>
> > It's a fiction that many bikes are designed by copying racing bikes.

> Ummm, nope.
> If you look at a $300 road bike in any bike shop (today that is,,, not
> 75 years ago) and compare it to the bikes used in the TdF, any average
> (non-riding) person would say that they are /pretty/ much alike.

> With MTB's it's the same story as well,
> between department-store examples and ones used at the top levels.
>
> This is the surprising part about upright bikes--the expensive ones tend
> to have the same comfort issues as the cheap ones.

The reason cheap bikes and racing bikes use roughly the same riding
positions is because, notwithstanding morphology and normal adjustments,
those riding positions work well for almost everyone. If you're old or
slow, the bars go up and back, and if you're young and fast, the bars go
down and forward. Everything else is details.

MTBs and road bikes offer pretty diverse ends of those fit ranges,
suiting their separate intents.

> Here's a fun question--can anyone name /any/ upright bicycles that will
> not accept standard seats? (-current or relatively-recent manufacture,
> no antiques please-) If the manufacturer felt the seat was truly ideal,
> then owners wouldn't need to change it, correct?
> I know of only the RANS CF bikes (Fusion, Cruz, ect), and these are
> "semi-recumbnets", made by a recumbent-bike company.
> Are there any others?.....

Have fun:

http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Ramp/2901/221Pr.html

Monty 221Pr trials bike. Upright. One saddle fits all.

Though why you might think interchangeable saddles are not generally a
good idea is beyond me.

One reason nobody offers a non-interchangeable seat is because there's
no advantage to non-interchangeability. Saddles are, in the long term, a
wear item, so replacement should be easy.

You've argued yourself into small circles in which you assert, without
any evidence I can see, that recumbents are some sort of solution to a
comfort issue which, on the evidence, is only experienced by recumbent
riders. Of course, that's what we'd expect: of riders who ride long
enough distances to run into serious comfort problems, a small fraction
solve those problems by getting a recumbent.

So let's look at the problem on the best evidence you can muster: get a
sensible number for the quantity of recumbents sold. US, Europe, global,
whatever number is reasonably representative and easy for you to get.

Then compare that to the quantity of upright bikes that sell in the same
price categories. That generously excludes the vast waves of upright
bikes sold in low-end price categories, and even some not-so-low-end DFs
that are still cheaper than bottom recumbents. This should also give us
a good idea of how many people are likely to end up in a recumbent as a
solution to a comfort issue.

So get those figures and--holy stochastics, Batman!

I just googled "recumbent sales figures" to try to get a first cut at an
answer. The first hit is this article on BRO:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/features/sleepers/sleepers.htm

It talks about some recumbent designs that are pretty spiffy despite
their lack of press or attention. It mentions seven 'bent models.

Of those, two are noted as being compromised by the reputations of their
stock seat!

"Burley's seat has been a controversial item also. It has improved
greatly over the last couple of years, but some people still find it to
be too firm."

"The downside of the Horizon has always been the seat. It's a firm mesh
design that may or may not hit you in the right places."

Sounds like the recumbent industry could use an interchangeable design!

So where does this leave us with recumbents? The comfy ones are slow,
except about 2/7 aren't even comfy, and the fast ones are sketchy. Heck,
from reading that list, there's also options that are slow and sketchy,
or options that are comfy, fairly fast, and very heavy.

The more I read about these things, the more likely I am to not buy one,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:20:38 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I have often seen it asserted that on an upright bicycle, the saddle is
>>not supposed to support the entire weight of the riders torso--and that
>>the rider (if they are using proper form) is supposed to partially
>>support the weight of their torso with their arms and legs.
>>
>>Now, I think this is a sad excuse for what is simply a poor bicycle
>>design. I know back when I had upright bikes I certainly didn't ride
>>like this, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of other
>>bicycle riders don't either, judging from the huge number of saddle pain
>>complaints seen here and elsewhere.
>
>If you don't think the arms are supporting a large part of the weight
>of your torso on an upright bike, try this experiment...
>
>1) Get into a typical riding position with your hands out on the brake
>hoods and your arms slightly bent.
>2) Take your hands off the brake hoods.
>3) Notice that you can't hold that position for very long without
>feeling the strain of keeping your torso in that position in your
>abdominal muscles.
>
>Just for grins, I did a quick Fogelesqe experiment. I wedged a
>bathroom scale under my headlight mount, and on top of the left brake
>hood. My 'cross bike is set up with the bars quite high (by my
>standards, at least), and is a very typical riding position on a
>drop-bar bike.
>
>When assuming my normal riding posture, and putting similar weight on
>both palms, I was seeing just under 30 pounds (13.5kg) of weight being
>borne by my left arm. Double that to 60 pounds (for both hands), and
>consider that I weigh just over 150, and I think it's easy to see that
>you DO carry a lot of the weight of your torso via your arms.
>
>As for legs supporting weight - that's also quite true, but much more
>so for those who ride faster. Essentially, the harder you push on the
>pedals, the more you unweight your saddle. Those who ride at much
>more pedestrian paces don't notice the benefit from pushing on the
>pedals as much (obviously).
>
>It's been my experience that almost anyone who is "in pain" on an
>upright bike has a bike that simply doesn't fit very well, or is
>trying to surpass their physical ability by riding too far.

Somewhere among the bookmarks I lost during my last computer change was a link
to a site on bike fitting that made staggering good sense. The author's premise
is that bike setup is all about making the bike comfortable at the level of
power output (pedal resistance) that the rider and/or the guy doing the setup
wants to target. For a race bike you drop the rider down and forward to the
point that he's got to pedal hard or suffer. For a more casual rider you are
more forgiving and move him up and widen the saddle enough that he can pedal
easier without suffering. For him it was all about commiting the rider to the
appropriate level of effort.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:32:43 -0600, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> No, it's a sad fact given the physics of this particular universe. If
>> you apply force downward on the pedals, you will naturally apply less
>> downward force on the seat.
>>
>So, tell me: if a casual 150-lb rider is tottering along at a casual
>pace, say 12-15 MPH, over level ground, how much downward force (in
>pounds) would they have to apply to the pedals? I'd bet not a whole lot;
>less than 20 lbs perhaps? 15 lbs maybe?

If that's how he rides, then he doesn't need a lot of pedal force to be
comfortable on the wide-saddled, upright bike he's toodling along on.

>> And not all riders choose to support part of their weight on the
>> handlebars. "Sit up and beg" posture is normal for many cyclists. For
>> example, look at the girl in this photo: http://tinyurl.com/yqccja
>>
>Charmingly enough--this photo also blows a big hole in the "levitating
>bicyclist" silliness, at least among one casual rider. The rider is not
>leaning forward at all, so she cannot be supporting her weight partly
>with her arm(s).

Because she is riding a very upright fat-saddle bike. You'll notice also that
she seemd very comfortable.

>It's a wonderful theory (like "pedaling in circles") but it's a
>comically-idiotic non-solution to saddle pain. Certainly very few
>/casual/ bicycle riders do it, and I'd be willing to bet that (if
>scientific measurements could be taken of a broad group) most
>competitive bicyclists don't really do it either.

Different bike, different techniques, different results.

Ron

 

[Mark Hickey]

DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> As for legs supporting weight - that's also quite true, but much more
>> so for those who ride faster. Essentially, the harder you push on the
>> pedals, the more you unweight your saddle. Those who ride at much
>> more pedestrian paces don't notice the benefit from pushing on the
>> pedals as much (obviously).
>>
>If you stood on the pedals the entire time you wouldn't get any saddle
>pain either--but then what's the point of the seat? If it's not for
>sitting on, why do all the seat companies bother with even putting
>padding or spring suspension on them? It does not bear logical extension
>that the LESS weight there is resting upon the saddle, the MORE picky
>people would be about which saddle they use (-not to mention the padded
>shorts--recumbent riders rest all their weight on the seat and they
>don't need padded shorts,,, if you're resting less-than-all of your
>torso's weight on your saddle, why would you need /more/ padding in the
>shorts? ).

Read what I actually wrote, and see if it makes sense to you this
time. If not, I'd suggest actually trying out an upright bike - you
have lots to learn about weight on a saddle. Are you really
suggesting that hard-core racers are MORE picky about saddle comfort
than those who ride similar distances very slowly? Have you ever
actually looked at racing saddles and touring saddles? Seems
unlikely.

>> It's been my experience that almost anyone who is "in pain" on an
>> upright bike has a bike that simply doesn't fit very well, or is
>> trying to surpass their physical ability by riding too far.
>
>No, the only thing you advise here is that it's necessary to trade off
>saddle pain for hand numbness--but those are the two most common
>problems people have riding upright bikes.

I didn't advise anything of the type. Again, try reading for
comprehension and not trying to filter it through some arbitrary
preconceived notion filter. It's like you're replying to someone
else's statements... almost spooky.

>Saddle pain and hand numbness may be a necessary part of the kinds of
>bikes that /you/ ride, but it isn't a part of all of them.

I've never said that I have problems with either issue.

Who ARE you replying to, anyway?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> As you can see, a standard 195-lb Fogel leaning comfortably on the
>> drops produces only about 35 pounds of pressure on the handlebars.
>
>re.bicycles.tech new unit of measurement: the standard Fogel.
>
>"I applied a force to the handlebars of .35 Fogels..."

I'm just hoping he wasn't RIDING the bike when whatever happened to
that stem, happened... yikes.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]>>wrote:

>>Just for grins, I did a quick Fogelesqe experiment. I wedged a
>>bathroom scale under my headlight mount, and on top of the left brake
>>hood. My 'cross bike is set up with the bars quite high (by my
>>standards, at least), and is a very typical riding position on a
>>drop-bar bike.
>>
>>When assuming my normal riding posture, and putting similar weight on
>>both palms, I was seeing just under 30 pounds (13.5kg) of weight being
>>borne by my left arm. Double that to 60 pounds (for both hands), and
>>consider that I weigh just over 150, and I think it's easy to see that
>>you DO carry a lot of the weight of your torso via your arms.
>
>Dear Mark,
>
>Fogelesque?
>
>Please, such tests are best left to professionals!

If only we.... never mind. ;-)

>Where are your weights, your workbench, your rope, your 2x4, your
>camera?
>
>Where are your embarrassing mishaps?

www.habcycles.com/bikecrash.html

>First, I put an ancient but accurate bathroom scale on a counter top
>and leaned on it.

That's gotta be the problem - no digital!

>Then I tried to insert some handlebars into the experiment, but the
>drops hit the countertop, so I scooted the scale over to the corner of
>the counter and got things to work that way.
>
>Pleased with my success, I tried to improve things by moving the scale
>to the corner of a handy metal railing around the steps leading down
>to Fogel Labs.
>
>Same result, except that I knocked the scale off the railing onto the
>carpet, and the scale began to read 200 lbs with nothing on it.
>
>A tap with a hammer fixed the scale, putting the housing back where
>it's supposed to be.

There goes the National Bureau of Standards certification for THIS
test!

>Now for a better setup and a picture!
>
>I couldn't think of any excuse for a rope, so I settled for a long 2x4
>on my workbench, with one end of the 2x4 sticking out into thin air.
>
>To hold the 2x4 down, I put 20 pounds of weights on the far end. (I
>could have roped it down, but using the weights was quicker.)
>
>Then I put the scale out on the end of the 2x4, laid the handlebars
>across it, and leaned on them. Perfect!
>
>Satisfied that my setup was as elegant as the Michelson-Morley
>experiment (they settled for tons of mercury instead of reliable
>2x4's), I rigged my camera with a timer delay (after wasting only ten
>minutes looking for the manual) and took this picture:
>
>http://i10.tinypic.com/35lay47.jpg
>
>As you can see, a standard 195-lb Fogel leaning comfortably on the
>drops produces only about 35 pounds of pressure on the handlebars.
>
>Your much larger 60-lb estimated result for a mere 150-lb Hickey may
>be due to different posture, scales, or setup.
>
>You were on an actual bike, but had only one hand sorta-kinda in place
>on top of a scale.
>
>I was beautifully balanced on both drops, but with no bicycle in
>sight.
>
>Of course, outright fraud must always be considered--look at the title
>of this thread!

I'm not quite sure how you simulated the "virtual cockpit length", but
that would have a profound effect on the amount of weight you put on
your hands. I'm a middle-of-the-bell curve US male at 5'10" (178cm)
and ride a very standard cockpit length with a 55cm top tube and an
11cm stem (on the 'cross bike, 1cm longer on the road bike). There's
a reasonable drop of 3-4 inches to the bars... pretty much a standard
riding position for average sized males the world over. With my
elbows slightly bent, my torso is at an approximate 45 degree angle,
which is what I was at during my experiment.

I don't doubt that there are differences in physiology that would
account for some of the difference, but if I was putting nearly 30
pounds on one hand, and what felt like a similar amount of weight on
the other, and doing so with only about 75% of the - ahem - ballast,
obviously we ended up in a different position somehow.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>DougC wrote:

>> So, tell me: if a casual 150-lb rider is tottering along at a casual
>> pace, say 12-15 MPH, over level ground, how much downward force (in
>> pounds) would they have to apply to the pedals? I'd bet not a whole lot;
>> less than 20 lbs perhaps? 15 lbs maybe?
>
>Not a whole lot. But you certainly can't pretend _all_ their weight is
>on the seat!

Actually, he can. And does, apparently.

At the very least, the weight of the legs is largely supported by the
pedals, even before you factor in propulsion. The fact that most
people don't pull up on the back stroke means that there's even more
"lift" than makes it to the chain (since the front foot is pushing up
the rear foot on every stroke of the crank).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> and every last one of them seemed to
>> be resting their full weight upon their saddles
>
>What do you mean by `seemed'?

He must mean they were rolling down the road with their arms and legs
splayed out, no longer in contact with the bike at all. C'mon, you
mean to tell us that's not how YOU ride? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[DougC]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Read what I actually wrote, and see if it makes sense to you this
> time. If not, I'd suggest actually trying out an upright bike - you
> have lots to learn about weight on a saddle. Are you really
> suggesting that hard-core racers are MORE picky about saddle comfort
> than those who ride similar distances very slowly? Have you ever
> actually looked at racing saddles and touring saddles? Seems
> unlikely.
>

I don't look at saddles much anymore, the bikes I buy come with one
seat, and I don't need to change it. What I've seen in shops lately
looks pretty much like what I /used/ to buy, back when I had those kinds
of bikes though.

> I didn't advise anything of the type. Again, try reading for
> comprehension and not trying to filter it through some arbitrary
> preconceived notion filter. It's like you're replying to someone
> else's statements... almost spooky.
>

I'll try to avoid my preconceived notions if you'll tell us what
recumbents have you tried, and how much riding did you do with them.
~

 

[Mark Hickey]

DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Read what I actually wrote, and see if it makes sense to you this
>> time. If not, I'd suggest actually trying out an upright bike - you
>> have lots to learn about weight on a saddle. Are you really
>> suggesting that hard-core racers are MORE picky about saddle comfort
>> than those who ride similar distances very slowly? Have you ever
>> actually looked at racing saddles and touring saddles? Seems
>> unlikely.
>
>I don't look at saddles much anymore, the bikes I buy come with one
>seat, and I don't need to change it. What I've seen in shops lately
>looks pretty much like what I /used/ to buy, back when I had those kinds
>of bikes though.

Translation: You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks
for the clarification.

>> I didn't advise anything of the type. Again, try reading for
>> comprehension and not trying to filter it through some arbitrary
>> preconceived notion filter. It's like you're replying to someone
>> else's statements... almost spooky.
>
>I'll try to avoid my preconceived notions if you'll tell us what
>recumbents have you tried, and how much riding did you do with them.

'Cept I'm not talking about 'bents, nor was I at any time. And yes,
I've ridden 'bents and actually kinda like fome of them. It's just
that so many of the people who ride them are such a (pardon the pun)
pain in my butt.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >> Read what I actually wrote, and see if it makes sense to you this
> >> time. If not, I'd suggest actually trying out an upright bike - you
> >> have lots to learn about weight on a saddle. Are you really
> >> suggesting that hard-core racers are MORE picky about saddle comfort
> >> than those who ride similar distances very slowly? Have you ever
> >> actually looked at racing saddles and touring saddles? Seems
> >> unlikely.
> >
> >I don't look at saddles much anymore, the bikes I buy come with one
> >seat, and I don't need to change it. What I've seen in shops lately
> >looks pretty much like what I /used/ to buy, back when I had those kinds
> >of bikes though.
>
> Translation: You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks
> for the clarification.
>
> >> I didn't advise anything of the type. Again, try reading for
> >> comprehension and not trying to filter it through some arbitrary
> >> preconceived notion filter. It's like you're replying to someone
> >> else's statements... almost spooky.
> >
> >I'll try to avoid my preconceived notions if you'll tell us what
> >recumbents have you tried, and how much riding did you do with them.
>
> 'Cept I'm not talking about 'bents, nor was I at any time. And yes,
> I've ridden 'bents and actually kinda like fome of them. It's just
> that so many of the people who ride them are such a (pardon the pun)
> pain in my butt.

You're right! I kept adjusting my saddle without
effect. I've been looking in the wrong place for the
cause. At least I do not suffer the same level of
distress as Mr. Recumbutt.

--
Michael Press

 

[Peter Grange]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:03:23 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:10:07 +0000, Peter Grange
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:30:42 -0600, DougC <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>shorts or gloves ("recumbent" riding shorts are lycra, but they are made
>> >>specifically without padding). As far as long-distance riding goes, you
>> >
>> >Any good sources for such shorts please? (preferably in the UK,
>> >although I will be in S Carolina for a holiday in May). All I can find
>> >in bike shops are the padded variety.
>>
>> Shop in an general athletic shop or google the terms lycra and shorts.
>
>I don't know it firsthand, but apparently in-line skaters (you know,
>rollerbladers) favour skinsuits with no chamois. They also seem to have
>skin-tight pants, but separate shorts cannot be found on this particular
>page:
>
>http://www.baysideblades.com.au/inline_skates_ls/skate_clothing/skate_per
>formance_clothing_ls.htm

Thanks each for the responses, I'll have a look around the sports
shops.

 

[ddog]

Mr. Recumbutt should have tried Spiderflex hornless saddle.
Truely a delight without rupture pain.
His design has many flaws.


Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Mark Hickey wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Read what I actually wrote, and see if it makes sense to you this
> > >> time. If not, I'd suggest actually trying out an upright bike - you
> > >> have lots to learn about weight on a saddle. Are you really
> > >> suggesting that hard-core racers are MORE picky about saddle comfort
> > >> than those who ride similar distances very slowly? Have you ever
> > >> actually looked at racing saddles and touring saddles? Seems
> > >> unlikely.
> > >
> > >I don't look at saddles much anymore, the bikes I buy come with one
> > >seat, and I don't need to change it. What I've seen in shops lately
> > >looks pretty much like what I /used/ to buy, back when I had those kinds
> > >of bikes though.
> >
> > Translation: You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks
> > for the clarification.
> >
> > >> I didn't advise anything of the type. Again, try reading for
> > >> comprehension and not trying to filter it through some arbitrary
> > >> preconceived notion filter. It's like you're replying to someone
> > >> else's statements... almost spooky.
> > >
> > >I'll try to avoid my preconceived notions if you'll tell us what
> > >recumbents have you tried, and how much riding did you do with them.
> >
> > 'Cept I'm not talking about 'bents, nor was I at any time. And yes,
> > I've ridden 'bents and actually kinda like fome of them. It's just
> > that so many of the people who ride them are such a (pardon the pun)
> > pain in my butt.
>
> You're right! I kept adjusting my saddle without
> effect. I've been looking in the wrong place for the
> cause. At least I do not suffer the same level of
> distress as Mr. Recumbutt.
>
> --
> Michael Press

 

[flatline]

Hmm... there could be a very simple explanation why old-time photos
showed people resting their full weight on saddles. The most obvious
is that camera shutter speeds were quite slow, so people had to remain
as motionless as possible to avoid blurring. So they assumed a more or
less static pose, and vertical postures lend themselves easily to that.
Another explanation is that bicycle forward speed was slow enough that
it wasn't necessary to assume a racing crouch in order to maximize body
efficiency.
Let's look at it from the point of view of horse racing....jockeys have
for many years assumed racing crouches, but most average horse riders
don't.
I theorize that early bicyclists rode their bikes the same way they did
horses...vertically.


On Jan 20, 1:24 am, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> But that's not the MAIN question I have.
> What I want to know is, when was the "levitation" form of riding first
> prescribed as a "solution" to saddle pain? I have seen a number of
> very-old photographs of bicyclists, and every last one of them seemed to
> be resting their full weight upon their saddles. At SOME point, bicycle
> marketing seems to have switched from trying to find better seating
> accommodations, to just admitting that upright saddles hurt to ride, and
> telling the customer it's their fault.
> When did this happen?
> ~

 

[DougC]

ddog wrote:
> Mr. Recumbutt should have tried Spiderflex hornless saddle.
> Truely a delight without rupture pain.
> His design has many flaws.
>

Yes but the problem with hornless saddles on upright bicycles is that
the rider tends to slide forward off the seat, so overall it results in
more hand pressure. You see this comment made online by many people who
have tried these seats, not by ME, or by "someone I know". ...So now the
rider is back to choosing between saddle pain or numb hands again.

If an upright bicycle works for you then great--but it's not the most
comfortable type out there, and arguing that it is sounds rather
ignorant when you have not tried anything different.
~

 

[ddog]

DougC wrote:
> Yes but the problem with hornless saddles on upright bicycles is that
> the rider tends to slide forward off the seat, so overall it results in
> more hand pressure. You see this comment made online by many people who
> have tried these seats, not by ME, or by "someone I know". ...So now the
> rider is back to choosing between saddle pain or numb hands again.
>
> If an upright bicycle works for you then great--but it's not the most
> comfortable type out there, and arguing that it is sounds rather
> ignorant when you have not tried anything different.
> ~

Doug,

I couldn't ride without Spider flex, and that is the only saddle of any
kind I can ride on. Its definitely the best hornless saddle bar none.
One other looked like it had possiblilities, except it was made from
Chinese **** materials and Chinese vendors were desigining for an IT
inventor. Too bad.

It does take a while to adjust to it with pedal interfaces, stems,
bars, and I've even got aerobars. And I am still tweaking, but its
satisfactory now and think can get much better. So every interface is a
leadtime and $$ for shipping mostly. But keep the seat level and you
can adjust nicely on it for completely different hand as well as body
positions, comfortably. Very high quality.

Your alternative is poor chiropractic posture looking down without arch
in your neck, especailly pedalling too. Its not an overnight occurance
for sure, but poor chiropractic posture leads to poor health and
disasterous long term chiropractic health consequences. Stability
forces are another issue, but researching that now in my tweaking.

The secret on this hornless is to keep pedalling, instant velocity no
problem; and it does have slick 302 SS oversized tubes on each thigh,
so its not exactly hornless. Its not too difficult to go without hands
pedalling, but its not real easy either. Its perfect forward
equilibrium to me, without sitting on your sensitive internal organs
inside your body: especially men, but women as well.

The only reason I can see it is not the saddle standard world wide is
it is direct source and LBS don't get margin. Also the biggest problem
I hear in LBS is "my seat hurts me". So maybe that keeps them coming
back, but I think ultimately, they just quit. Happens every day, and
new people in LBS every time I go about once a week. I have allot of
professional disciplines within ergonomic/anthropometric fitting, and
strongly believe most men especially are hurting themselves without
one. Smaller kids it doesn't bother, but I was almost 185 lbs and 6'
when about 15 yrs old. I rode all over Atlanta from the suburbs, and
needless to say I was hurting allot. So I started working out, and then
running and quit bikes for 25 years until I took the time to find the
correct Saddle after couple of engineering degrees and a dozen seats
later. If you havent' tried the money back guarantee on Spiderflex, you
owe it to your reproductive health. Bike seats are not natural.

The reason you don't see your alternative on the road is there is not
enough room on the edge of the road to ride safely among several other
issues Im' sure that were addressed in this thread. If you ride one,
good luck friend. I'm still waiting to see the first one on the road.
I'll engineer from known starting places to get better, but I'm not a
pioneer, lol.

 

[Marian]

ddog wrote:

> The only reason I can see it is not the saddle standard world wide is
> it is direct source and LBS don't get margin. Also the biggest problem
> I hear in LBS is "my seat hurts me". So maybe that keeps them coming
> back, but I think ultimately, they just quit. Happens every day, and
> new people in LBS every time I go about once a week.

Most frequent complaint I hear in the LBS are "someone finished all the
tea, whose going to go upstairs and make more?"

If I'm in the _other_ LBS the complaint tends to be along the line of
"someone finished all the tea, whose going to go in back and make
more?"

Your LBS and my LBS are obviously very _very_ different kinds of
places.

-M

 

[DougC]

ddog wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I couldn't ride without Spider flex, and that is the only saddle of any
> kind I can ride on. Its definitely the best hornless saddle bar none.
>
Yes but what bicycle do you have it on? A couple (I mentioned earlier)
are better than the others for these seats.

> The only reason I can see it is not the saddle standard world wide is
> it is direct source and LBS don't get margin. Also the biggest problem
> I hear in LBS is "my seat hurts me". So maybe that keeps them coming
> back, but I think ultimately, they just quit....

Yes, this goes back to what I said earlier--about most bike shops know
nothing about recumbents, and yet they would rather sell someone a dozen
different saddles for a "regular" bike than tell them where to go to get
a bike that doesn't hurt to ride.

> The reason you don't see your alternative on the road is there is not
> enough room on the edge of the road to ride safely among several other
> issues Im' sure that were addressed in this thread. If you ride one,
> good luck friend. I'm still waiting to see the first one on the road.
> I'll engineer from known starting places to get better, but I'm not a
> pioneer, lol.
>
?
Recumbents are usually no wider than normal bicycles, and can even be
significantly narrower.

I measured mine: the seats on both the recumbents I have are only about
16 inches wide, about as wide as an adult's torso is anyway. The
handlebars on a MTB or hybrid bike are usually ~24-26 inches wide,,,,
and the handlebars on both recumbents I have are just about the same
width as that. If you got a recumbent that could take T-bars
(preying-mantis style bars) then they could easily be narrower than the
seat, and the widest part of the entire bike would be where your
shoulders stuck out.---The only recumbents that would be significantly
wider than a "normal" bicycle are trikes and (perhaps) recumbent bikes
that use under-seat steering.

As for the other reasons, I've only ever heard two good reasons not to
ride recumbents. Having a UCI-legal bike to train and compete on is ONE
reason, and amazingly enough, nobody else here even /mentioned/ the
other one.... because most of the people here who are giving reasons not
to ride a recumbent appear not to have ever done extended riding on
them. Most really don't know the advantages and disadvantages.
~

 

[ddog]

DougC wrote:
> Most really don't know the advantages and disadvantages.
> ~

True, and don't let me discourage use. I don't know first hand, but I
don't have to dig ditches all
my life to know its bad for your posture.

My only complaint is the neck posture if you were an high mileage rider
for many years.
I've just never seen one on the road yet. I would not mind trying one,
but never seen one in LBS either.

Good luck