Best roadbike for rough pave'?

[Johnny Sunset]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...I have read that a standard non-faired non-lowrider
> recumbent has an aerodynamic drag similar to a cyclist on a standard
> bicycle. If that's the case, then some other factor must account for
> the higher speeds. Biomechanics or ergonomics perhaps? I really have
> no idea, maybe someone wiser than me does. I've only ridden a
> recumbent around the block, so I don't have a comparison.

The proper term is "lowracer" [1] - a "lowrider" [2] is a bicycle built
for show, not serious riding.

Some recumbents, such as the out of production BikeE [3] compact long
wheel base (CLWB) will be slower than a road bike (rider on the drops)
due to the combination of higher drivetrain friction, rolling
resistance and upright rider position.

[1] E.g.
<http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/gritters/20-20-lowracer-side.jpg>.
[2] E.g. <http://www.lowriderbike.com/>.
[3] <http://www.bikefix.co.uk/images/bikeE.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >
> > Opinion noted.
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>
> Lots snipped but-If you have no reproducible quantitative evidence, you
> are posting
> > nothing but "used male bovine food"
>
> This is a "opinion' forum, afterall. Most of what is 'bikes IS opinion,
> not hard facts....

Writing "I wouldn't be any faster than I am now riding on a bent.
Nobody would.
Bents are not 'faster', period. Riding up to jamestown would take twice

the time to get there on a bent than on an upright." implies statement
of fact, not opinion.

> If ya like yer bent and want to beloeve it's the
> salvation for all the ills of uprights, groovy, but I won't hold my
> breath for 'bents to be mainstream anytime soon, and I won't own, ride,
> or work on one.

The joy of narrow-minded (real, not political) conservatism!
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Opinion noted.
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> >
> > Lots snipped but-If you have no reproducible quantitative evidence, you
> > are posting
> > > nothing but "used male bovine food"
> >
> > This is a "opinion' forum, afterall. Most of what is 'bikes IS opinion,
> > not hard facts....
>
> Writing "I wouldn't be any faster than I am now riding on a bent.
> Nobody would.
> Bents are not 'faster', period. Riding up to jamestown would take twice
>
> the time to get there on a bent than on an upright." implies statement
> of fact, not opinion.
>
> > If ya like yer bent and want to beloeve it's the
> > salvation for all the ills of uprights, groovy, but I won't hold my
> > breath for 'bents to be mainstream anytime soon, and I won't own, ride,
> > or work on one.
>
> The joy of narrow-minded (real, not political) conservatism!

Whew, wonder if we can get this to 200 posts!
Bents, what an interesting subject. Such EMOTION, now to name calling.
I wondered how long that would take.
Well, too bad that even tho they are 'clearly' superior, bents are
nowhere to be seen. So easy to blame the industry for this. Why hasn't
anybody(you Mr Sunset?), gotten the $, the design, the factory and made
their millions making these wonderful machines? They do everything
better-correct? So their manufacture and sale should be a slam dunk...a
bent only store, like a tandem only store or BMX only store...

Why not? You have 2 of 20 that were built but are convinced that it is
superior. Why only 20 made?

> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[richard]

Cannondale once made a cross bike with its "fat head" suspension fork.

Jim wrote:
> We've got a nice 7% grade 1500 ft. climb here in Santa Barbara; tight &
> twisty Old San Marcos Pass Rd. The County Roads Dept. has allowed this great
> old road to deteriorate to the point it's rough & dangerous to descend on a
> road bike. I've got a bad neck, & I've been riding the newer main highway
> back down each day, but it's very dangerous with all the traffic.
> I'm looking for a bike that's fun to climb & can soak up the judders on the
> descent.
> I'm wondering if maybe there's a cyclocross bike with a suspension fork now
> available. I generally hate mountain bikes, but perhaps a ti hardtail
> frame... What's sweet? I'd need a 62cm road or 23" mountain frame.
> The fork doesn't need much travel, of course. I've been using an old
> Litespeed Ti Catalyst, which is a pretty soft frame.
> Jim Hultman
>
>

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> Whew, wonder if we can get this to 200 posts!

We got bar-end shifters versus brifters to more than 700 posts.

> Bents, what an interesting subject. Such EMOTION, now to name calling.
> I wondered how long that would take.

When people post unsubstatiated opinion as fact, I can be crabbier than
JB.

Peter Chisholm was the one who started out being contentious. [1]

> Well, too bad that even tho they are 'clearly' superior, bents are
> nowhere to be seen. So easy to blame the industry for this. Why hasn't
> anybody(you Mr Sunset?), gotten the $, the design, the factory and made
> their millions making these wonderful machines? They do everything
> better-correct? So their manufacture and sale should be a slam dunk...a
> bent only store, like a tandem only store or BMX only store...

A low volume upright builder has the advantage that tube sets are
readily available for diamond frame uprights. In addition, a low volume
upright builder only needs to manufacture the frame, as everything else
is available off the shelf (though some also make their own forks).

By contrast, a recumbent seat can take as much time to fabricate as the
frame, and parts such as handlebars and steering risers are also
usually custom parts.

J&B is apparently making a profit selling entry level recumbents under
the Sun name (as a large business, J&B would not be in the recumbent
business out of belief in the design the way a small builder would). Of
course, J&B has the advantage of (reportedly) having extensive
investments in the Taiwanese bicycle and component manufacturing
industry, not to mention having the distribution network of almost
every LBS in the US.

> Why not? You have 2 of 20 that were built but are convinced that it is
> superior. Why only 20 made?

The owner had more orders on hand for both Sunset Lowracers and
Dragonflyer trikes, but was unable to keep sufficient cash flow to pay
his suppliers, preventing him from fulfilling the orders.

I doubt anyone makes significant money in low volume upright bicycle
production unless/until they establish a reputation to where they can
charge significantly more for their frames than a functionally
comparable mass-produced frame would cost.

[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/8d52c543436119de?dmode=source>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>
>> Whew, wonder if we can get this to 200 posts!
>
> We got bar-end shifters versus brifters to more than 700 posts.
>
>> Bents, what an interesting subject. Such EMOTION, now to name
>> calling. I wondered how long that would take.
>
> When people post unsubstatiated opinion as fact, I can be crabbier
> than JB.
>
> Peter Chisholm was the one who started out being contentious. [1]
>
>> Well, too bad that even tho they are 'clearly' superior, bents are
>> nowhere to be seen. So easy to blame the industry for this. Why
>> hasn't anybody(you Mr Sunset?), gotten the $, the design, the
>> factory and made their millions making these wonderful machines?
>> They do everything better-correct? So their manufacture and sale
>> should be a slam dunk...a bent only store, like a tandem only store
>> or BMX only store...
>
> A low volume upright builder has the advantage that tube sets are
> readily available for diamond frame uprights. In addition, a low
> volume upright builder only needs to manufacture the frame, as
> everything else is available off the shelf (though some also make
> their own forks).
>
> By contrast, a recumbent seat can take as much time to fabricate as
> the frame, and parts such as handlebars and steering risers are also
> usually custom parts.
>
> J&B is apparently making a profit selling entry level recumbents under
> the Sun name (as a large business, J&B would not be in the recumbent
> business out of belief in the design the way a small builder would).
> Of course, J&B has the advantage of (reportedly) having extensive
> investments in the Taiwanese bicycle and component manufacturing
> industry, not to mention having the distribution network of almost
> every LBS in the US.
>
>> Why not? You have 2 of 20 that were built but are convinced that it
>> is superior. Why only 20 made?
>
> The owner had more orders on hand for both Sunset Lowracers and
> Dragonflyer trikes, but was unable to keep sufficient cash flow to pay
> his suppliers, preventing him from fulfilling the orders.
>
> I doubt anyone makes significant money in low volume upright bicycle
> production unless/until they establish a reputation to where they can
> charge significantly more for their frames than a functionally
> comparable mass-produced frame would cost.
>
> [1]
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/8d52c543436119de?dmode=source>.

The word "bike" seems to have you captivated.
A couch on two wheels is a bike as fish-sticks are fish.
But it's only a narrow-minded spastic opinion.
(The tag signature is often offered, but in this case, it's instructional.)

--
Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.

 

[Sorni]

Sandy wrote:
{Much snippage taken}

> A couch on two wheels is a bike as fish-sticks are fish.

Mmmmmm, fish sticks.

(That reminds me: I've got some frosty frozen flaky turd-shaped things
that've been in the 'fridge since...'99? GOOD EATIN' TONIGHT!)

Bill "glad I could add to yet another technical discussion" S.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 4 Feb 2006 06:44:25 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> was the one who started out being contentious. [1]

Could you just write normally rather than using these stupid
footnotes.

Thanks

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
> {Much snippage taken}
>
> > A couch on two wheels is a bike as fish-sticks are fish.
>
> Mmmmmm, fish sticks.

There are a couple of great "Life in Hell" strips that deal with fish
sticks.

----
"Ringworm - It's not a ring and it's not a worm. It's a fungus.

Fish sticks. It's not a fish and it's not a stick. It's a fungus."
---

> (That reminds me: I've got some frosty frozen flaky turd-shaped things
> that've been in the 'fridge since...'99? GOOD EATIN' TONIGHT!)

Are you inviting Neil Brooks to dinner?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2006 06:44:25 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > was the one who started out being contentious. [1]
>
> Could you just write normally rather than using these stupid
> footnotes.

I likes [1] footnotes.

[1] Intentional misspelling.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tim McNamara <[email protected]>:
>And call me a shameless traditionalist, but I do like the look of a
>"7" shaped stem. I suppose my sense of bike aesthetics was set in the
>1970s. I'm an oldish duffer!

So do I, but it's not really a reason to preserve it - the only functional
advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
onehanded.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Olethros, February - a weekend.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per David Damerell:
>So do I, but it's not really a reason to preserve it - the only functional
>advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
>onehanded.

Funny thing - that's what I like about my 130 mm Thompson threadless stem...
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Michael Press]

In article <WZs*[email protected]>,
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Tim McNamara <[email protected]>:
> >And call me a shameless traditionalist, but I do like the look of a
> >"7" shaped stem. I suppose my sense of bike aesthetics was set in the
> >1970s. I'm an oldish duffer!
>
> So do I, but it's not really a reason to preserve it - the only functional
> advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
> onehanded.

When pushing the bike one handed I grasp the saddle, and
hold the bike away from me with the saddle ahead of me. I
can maintain a brisk walking pace this way, but not when
holding the stem.

--
Michael Press

 

[41]

David Damerell wrote:

> the only functional
> advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
> onehanded.

Incorrect. If the (traditional) stem went direct from top of headset to
bars, there would be no height adjustment, the reason for preferring
such stems to begin with.

With (new style) stems, almost the same holds: if you have the extended
steerer for height adjustment with spacers, you more or less have the
same excess metal.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting 41 <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>the only functional
>>advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
>>onehanded.
>Incorrect. If the (traditional) stem went direct from top of headset to
>bars,

These are not the only possible shapes. Some quill stems have vertical
adjustment but run diagonally from the highest useful insertion point to
the bars.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, February.

 

[41]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting 41 <[email protected]>:
> >David Damerell wrote:
> >>the only functional
> >>advantage of the 7-shaped stem is that it's easy to push the bike
> >>onehanded.
> >Incorrect. If the (traditional) stem went direct from t op of headset to
> >bars,
>
> These are not the only possible shapes. Some quill stems have vertical
> adjustment but run diagonally from the highest useful insertion point to
> the bars.

Or lowest, depending on how you look at things.à