Can Saddles Restrict Blood Flow To Leg Muscles?



Tom Keats wrote:
>
>
> The point is not for bicycle saddles to be comfortable, it's for
> /bicycles/ to be comfortable. A well-fitting bicycle is more worn
> like a suit, than sat upon like a chair.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
Yea but when you're riding around on that suit, unfortunately much of
the time you're forced to sit on it like a chair. If you put your butt
on it while your legs are doing something besides holding you up, then
"it's a chair".

-And apparently it's necessary to accessorize that suit with padded
shorts and padded gloves, as well as the occasional neck brace for RAAM.

You seem resigned to the fact that an upright saddle isn't comfortable,
and can't be--and on that type of bicycle, it really can't be. So you
see? You are halfway to enlightenment already. But this is the easy
part--the obvious part. You must now learn to let go......
~
 
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:13:55 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're still talking about using bicycle saddles as chairs.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>Yes, because both of them are for sitting on. Jeez, what else you use a
>bike seat for?

If it were meant for sitting it would be called a seat. Instead it is meant to
be ridden upon and is therefore called a saddle.

Sitting is for at home.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:
>
>
> If it were meant for sitting it would be called a seat. Instead it is meant to
> be ridden upon and is therefore called a saddle.
>
> Sitting is for at home.
>
> Ron

So your butt hurts too huh?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>
>> The point is not for bicycle saddles to be comfortable, it's for
>> /bicycles/ to be comfortable. A well-fitting bicycle is more worn
>> like a suit, than sat upon like a chair.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> Yea but when you're riding around on that suit, unfortunately much of
> the time you're forced to sit on it like a chair. If you put your butt
> on it while your legs are doing something besides holding you up, then
> "it's a chair".

You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.

> -And apparently it's necessary to accessorize that suit with padded
> shorts and padded gloves, as well as the occasional neck brace for RAAM.

None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.

> You seem resigned to the fact that an upright saddle isn't comfortable,

From where do you get that idea? Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
Hell, a polished granite saddle would probably be comfortable enough for
me, if it had a long enough nose, not too much cantle, no sharp edges, and
the weather isn't too cold.

> and can't be--and on that type of bicycle, it really can't be. So you
> see? You are halfway to enlightenment already. But this is the easy
> part--the obvious part. You must now learn to let go......

Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
are as bad as the Linux crybabies.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>
>> The point is not for bicycle saddles to be comfortable, it's for
>> /bicycles/ to be comfortable. A well-fitting bicycle is more worn
>> like a suit, than sat upon like a chair.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> Yea but when you're riding around on that suit, unfortunately much of
> the time you're forced to sit on it like a chair. If you put your butt
> on it while your legs are doing something besides holding you up, then
> "it's a chair".

You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.

> -And apparently it's necessary to accessorize that suit with padded
> shorts and padded gloves, as well as the occasional neck brace for RAAM.

None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.

> You seem resigned to the fact that an upright saddle isn't comfortable,

From where do you get that idea? Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
Hell, a polished granite saddle would probably be comfortable enough for
me, if it had a long enough nose, not too much cantle, no sharp edges, and
the weather isn't too cold.

> and can't be--and on that type of bicycle, it really can't be. So you
> see? You are halfway to enlightenment already. But this is the easy
> part--the obvious part. You must now learn to let go......

Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
are as bad as the Linux crybabies.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:05:52 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>> If it were meant for sitting it would be called a seat. Instead it is meant to
>> be ridden upon and is therefore called a saddle.
>>
>> Sitting is for at home.
>>
>> Ron
>
>So your butt hurts too huh?

Uh, no.

Ron
 
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:05:52 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>> If it were meant for sitting it would be called a seat. Instead it is meant to
>> be ridden upon and is therefore called a saddle.
>>
>> Sitting is for at home.
>>
>> Ron
>
>So your butt hurts too huh?

Uh, no.

Ron
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
> lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
> my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
> horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.
> ...

So someone else has (once again) complained of seat pain--and your grand
advice is "if it hurts to sit on, then don't sit on it"? ...Would it
help if he bought a Ti-rail $250 saddle and didn't sit on it, or will a
$30 cheapo saddle do for not sitting? Or does he need to be "fitted" for
a saddle that he's not going to be sitting on?

(I admit I cannot normally stand on the pedals of any of my bicycles
while riding)

> ...
> None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
> bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
> a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
> unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.
> ...
>

Well all I know is an astonishing number of DF bike shops seem to sell
them (-padded shorts and gloves, that is-). And an astonishing number of
recumbent vendors /don't/. It would seem to me that a great many people
find riding conventional bicycles uncomfortable enough to spend money
for padded clothes to try to make it less so.

>
> ....Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
> and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
> None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
> I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
> who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
> powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
>

So here you are essentially arguing that "bicycle seats don't hurt that
bad", but with the condition that you are a "lightweight guy".

Maybe the problem with your friend's RX-7 seats was that you were too
fat and tall to fit in them; the Japanese build some great cars but are
rather small in physical stature you know. ....Would you say it was your
fault the seats were uncomfortable, or do you think the seats should
have been designed to be comfortable to as wide a variety of people as
reasonably possible?

>
> Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
> are as bad as the Linux crybabies.
>

I am not a "recumbent proselyte", I am a "comfortable bicycle
proselyte". Recumbents just happen to be the only way to go for that
right now.
~~~~~~~~
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
> lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
> my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
> horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.
> ...

So someone else has (once again) complained of seat pain--and your grand
advice is "if it hurts to sit on, then don't sit on it"? ...Would it
help if he bought a Ti-rail $250 saddle and didn't sit on it, or will a
$30 cheapo saddle do for not sitting? Or does he need to be "fitted" for
a saddle that he's not going to be sitting on?

(I admit I cannot normally stand on the pedals of any of my bicycles
while riding)

> ...
> None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
> bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
> a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
> unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.
> ...
>

Well all I know is an astonishing number of DF bike shops seem to sell
them (-padded shorts and gloves, that is-). And an astonishing number of
recumbent vendors /don't/. It would seem to me that a great many people
find riding conventional bicycles uncomfortable enough to spend money
for padded clothes to try to make it less so.

>
> ....Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
> and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
> None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
> I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
> who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
> powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
>

So here you are essentially arguing that "bicycle seats don't hurt that
bad", but with the condition that you are a "lightweight guy".

Maybe the problem with your friend's RX-7 seats was that you were too
fat and tall to fit in them; the Japanese build some great cars but are
rather small in physical stature you know. ....Would you say it was your
fault the seats were uncomfortable, or do you think the seats should
have been designed to be comfortable to as wide a variety of people as
reasonably possible?

>
> Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
> are as bad as the Linux crybabies.
>

I am not a "recumbent proselyte", I am a "comfortable bicycle
proselyte". Recumbents just happen to be the only way to go for that
right now.
~~~~~~~~
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
>> lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
>> my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
>> horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.
>> ...
>
> So someone else has (once again) complained of seat pain--

Where? Are you hallucinating?

> and your grand
> advice is "if it hurts to sit on, then don't sit on it"? ...Would it
> help if he bought a Ti-rail $250 saddle and didn't sit on it, or will a
> $30 cheapo saddle do for not sitting? Or does he need to be "fitted" for
> a saddle that he's not going to be sitting on?

Trying to talk to you is like trying to get through to someone who's
under the influence of a combo of magic mushrooms, SSRIs, alcohol &
asthma meds.

Okay, square one. Saddles aren't for sitting on, they're mostly
for stabilizing the bike against the forces inflicted by the rider.
They help the rider hold the bike steady as the rider moves. The
rider make movements with pedalling and scootching back-&-forth
in the saddle (or on-or-off it). The bicycle makes 3 kinds of movements:
externally with the whole mechanism moving forward, internally there's
the drivetrain stuff going on, and there's also lateral responses to the
stresses inflicted by the rider. The saddle plays an important role in
controlling all those movements. While a rider controls those movements,
s/he is neither standing nor sitting. I guess it's an in-between state
that may be closer to walking or running.

> (I admit I cannot normally stand on the pedals of any of my bicycles
> while riding)

It's a very useful skill. In urban environments it especially helps
one to peer over the tops of cars to establish sightlines, as well
as enhancing one's visibility to the rest of the traffic. The skill
is also pretty much a prerequisite in learning to do any kind of trackstand.

>> None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
>> bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
>> a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
>> unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.

> Well all I know is an astonishing number of DF bike shops seem to sell
> them (-padded shorts and gloves, that is-).

And an astonishingly number of people don't know how to /really/
ride a bicycle.

> And an astonishing number of
> recumbent vendors /don't/. It would seem to me that a great many people
> find riding conventional bicycles uncomfortable enough to spend money
> for padded clothes to try to make it less so.

Yeah, a lot of people would rather buy easy solutions, than /learn/ them.

>> ....Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
>> and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
>> None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
>> I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
>> who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
>> powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
>>
>
> So here you are essentially arguing that "bicycle seats don't hurt that
> bad", but with the condition that you are a "lightweight guy".

Hey, if the only way fatsoes can enjoy cycling is with recumbents,
then let them ride recumbents. It's better than nothing.

> Maybe the problem with your friend's RX-7 seats was that you were too
> fat and tall to fit in them;

Too long-legged, anyways. So much so that perches I can get up onto
are much more comfortable than ones I have to get down into (or up
out of.)

> the Japanese build some great cars but are
> rather small in physical stature you know. ...

Heh :) I've met some Japanese folks who're bigger & taller than
me, at my 5'11", 150 lbs.

> Would you say it was your
> fault the seats were uncomfortable, or do you think the seats should
> have been designed to be comfortable to as wide a variety of people as
> reasonably possible?

I didn't select the car, my friend did, for reasons of his own (that
I still don't understand.)

>> Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
>> are as bad as the Linux crybabies.

> I am not a "recumbent proselyte", I am a "comfortable bicycle
> proselyte". Recumbents just happen to be the only way to go for that
> right now.

That's totally wrong.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> You're so wrong. The way I've got my bikes set up, my pedalling actually
>> lifts some of my weight off the saddle. So even while I'm on the saddle,
>> my legs are still partially holding me up. I can set my cranks at
>> horizontal and stand on them (lift off the saddle) with great ease.
>> ...
>
> So someone else has (once again) complained of seat pain--

Where? Are you hallucinating?

> and your grand
> advice is "if it hurts to sit on, then don't sit on it"? ...Would it
> help if he bought a Ti-rail $250 saddle and didn't sit on it, or will a
> $30 cheapo saddle do for not sitting? Or does he need to be "fitted" for
> a saddle that he's not going to be sitting on?

Trying to talk to you is like trying to get through to someone who's
under the influence of a combo of magic mushrooms, SSRIs, alcohol &
asthma meds.

Okay, square one. Saddles aren't for sitting on, they're mostly
for stabilizing the bike against the forces inflicted by the rider.
They help the rider hold the bike steady as the rider moves. The
rider make movements with pedalling and scootching back-&-forth
in the saddle (or on-or-off it). The bicycle makes 3 kinds of movements:
externally with the whole mechanism moving forward, internally there's
the drivetrain stuff going on, and there's also lateral responses to the
stresses inflicted by the rider. The saddle plays an important role in
controlling all those movements. While a rider controls those movements,
s/he is neither standing nor sitting. I guess it's an in-between state
that may be closer to walking or running.

> (I admit I cannot normally stand on the pedals of any of my bicycles
> while riding)

It's a very useful skill. In urban environments it especially helps
one to peer over the tops of cars to establish sightlines, as well
as enhancing one's visibility to the rest of the traffic. The skill
is also pretty much a prerequisite in learning to do any kind of trackstand.

>> None of those things are at all necessary with a suitably-fitting upright
>> bike. What is necessary is knowing how to ride, rather than simply making
>> a bike "go". Remember when I said that suspension seatposts are totally
>> unnecessary? That's part of the deal too.

> Well all I know is an astonishing number of DF bike shops seem to sell
> them (-padded shorts and gloves, that is-).

And an astonishingly number of people don't know how to /really/
ride a bicycle.

> And an astonishing number of
> recumbent vendors /don't/. It would seem to me that a great many people
> find riding conventional bicycles uncomfortable enough to spend money
> for padded clothes to try to make it less so.

Yeah, a lot of people would rather buy easy solutions, than /learn/ them.

>> ....Fact is, I've used all kinds of saddles
>> and not many of them have been truly tortuously uncomfortable for me.
>> None of them are a pillow of clouds, but I don't use them as such. But
>> I've learned to ride light in the saddle. I'm already a lightweight guy
>> who has to put rocks in his pockets on windy days. So I don't need human
>> powered lawn furniture on which to sling an excessively lardy behind.
>>
>
> So here you are essentially arguing that "bicycle seats don't hurt that
> bad", but with the condition that you are a "lightweight guy".

Hey, if the only way fatsoes can enjoy cycling is with recumbents,
then let them ride recumbents. It's better than nothing.

> Maybe the problem with your friend's RX-7 seats was that you were too
> fat and tall to fit in them;

Too long-legged, anyways. So much so that perches I can get up onto
are much more comfortable than ones I have to get down into (or up
out of.)

> the Japanese build some great cars but are
> rather small in physical stature you know. ...

Heh :) I've met some Japanese folks who're bigger & taller than
me, at my 5'11", 150 lbs.

> Would you say it was your
> fault the seats were uncomfortable, or do you think the seats should
> have been designed to be comfortable to as wide a variety of people as
> reasonably possible?

I didn't select the car, my friend did, for reasons of his own (that
I still don't understand.)

>> Now you're just being another silly recumbent proselyte. You guys
>> are as bad as the Linux crybabies.

> I am not a "recumbent proselyte", I am a "comfortable bicycle
> proselyte". Recumbents just happen to be the only way to go for that
> right now.

That's totally wrong.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:
>
>
>>(I admit I cannot normally stand on the pedals of any of my bicycles
>>while riding)
>
>
> It's a very useful skill. In urban environments it especially helps
> one to peer over the tops of cars to establish sightlines, as well
> as enhancing one's visibility to the rest of the traffic. The skill
> is also pretty much a prerequisite in learning to do any kind of trackstand.
>

This was a joke, scooter.
I said before, I don't own any more upright bicycles.
I bet you can't stand on a recumbent's pedals while riding
either--though I guess if one is into "ultimate-wheeling" and you aren't
using a SWB, it isn't impossible.

>
>>
>>So here you are essentially arguing that "bicycle seats don't hurt that
>>bad", but with the condition that you are a "lightweight guy".
>
>
> Hey, if the only way fatsoes can enjoy cycling is with recumbents,
> then let them ride recumbents. It's better than nothing.
>

The thing is, they're more comfortable for everybody.
And the person who STARTED this whole thread was complaining of (-guess
what?-) seat pain! I stopped complaining about riding discomfort pretty
much when I got rid of the last upright bike.
.....The main complaint I have about recumbents is that it's hard to find
car racks to fit many of them.

>
>>I am not a "recumbent proselyte", I am a "comfortable bicycle
>>proselyte". Recumbents just happen to be the only way to go for that
>>right now.
>
>
> That's totally wrong.
>

Like I said--I owned a few mid-level ($1500) road bikes through the last
15 years and tried quite a few different seats and bars. None of them
were anywhere near as nice to ride as a $500 recumbent is.

It all depends on where your priorities are I suppose.
Maybe someone should charter a newsgroup named
"rec.bicycles.racer.wannabee" for those that insist on buying
uncomfortable bikes no matter what, just because "it's like what Lance
uses"......
 
DougC a écrit :
> recumbents

Since that's the only song you seem to know, you will remain an
invisible mystery to me.

--

Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm, denigration, snotty
remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that "you do the
math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according to
[insert NAME here].
 
RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>So your butt hurts too huh?
>
>
> Uh, no.
>
> Ron

How many pairs of padded shorts do you own?
 
Sandy wrote:
> DougC a écrit :
> > recumbents
>
> Since that's the only song you seem to know, you will remain an
> invisible mystery to me.
>
I stated earlier--I was riding uprights before I moved on to recumbents.
I have owned both types. Have you?

As far as what is an "invisible mystery" to you, I'm not going to get
into that.
~
 
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:49:14 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>So your butt hurts too huh?
>>
>>
>> Uh, no.
>>
>> Ron
>
>How many pairs of padded shorts do you own?

Enough.

So are you sick of riding in traffic, stuck on baking pavement yet?

Ever wonder what it would be like to ride through the woods?

Ever aspire to riding something that is more than an underpowered car?

Wouldn't it be cool to not have to stop for every curb and sand patch?

Sorry dude, your recumbent is not an alternative for me.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:49:14 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>How many pairs of padded shorts do you own?
>
>
> Enough.
>
> So are you sick of riding in traffic, stuck on baking pavement yet?
>
---I ride on rural roads or bike trails, hardly ever in the city/in
motor traffic. When you're on a bicycle, cars are dangerous and best
avoided totally. But with the humidity like it is here, you'd be baking
in the middle of the street or the middle of the woods anyway.

> Ever wonder what it would be like to ride through the woods?
>
---Well to some extent, we are all creatures of our environments: where
I live (St Louis area) there is hardly anyplace to ride off road anyway.
Only one park with decent [multi-use] trails where biking is allowed,
and because of that it's way too busy. For low-speed technical
off-roading I'd still agree a upright MTB is best, but if that's your
preference then don't bother bringing a bike to St Louis.

As for off-road recumbents, there are such creatures, and people use
them for singletrack and fire-road riding. Just not in the St Louis area.

> Ever aspire to riding something that is more than an underpowered car?
>
---I said [twice] before--I had upright bikes (both on-road and MTB)
before recumbents. I already know what both are like.

The thing with an upright bike is that a lot of the effort involved in
riding doesn't have anything to do with turning the pedals. You need to
ride 30-50 miles on a recumbent to realize this however. Upright riders
will test-ride a recumbent and just ride it for a few minutes, and say
"yea it's more comfortable but it's not that much difference",,, because
riding their upright bike for that same distance wouldn't result in any
pain either,,,, so they think both are "about the same". But the longer
the ride is, the bigger the comfort difference becomes. At 50 miles, the
comfort/exhaustion difference between the two types is huge.

> Wouldn't it be cool to not have to stop for every curb and sand patch?
>
What curbs? There are none where I ride, and I wouldn't be riding on
sidewalks anyway. As for sand and gravel patches, I usually just ride on
through.

> Sorry dude, your recumbent is not an alternative for me.
>
> Ron
Not today anyway. Eventually though none of that padding is going to be
"enough"....
 
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:46:45 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:49:14 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>How many pairs of padded shorts do you own?
>>
>>
>> Enough.
>>
>> So are you sick of riding in traffic, stuck on baking pavement yet?
>>
>---I ride on rural roads or bike trails, hardly ever in the city/in
>motor traffic. When you're on a bicycle, cars are dangerous and best
>avoided totally. But with the humidity like it is here, you'd be baking
>in the middle of the street or the middle of the woods anyway.
>
>> Ever wonder what it would be like to ride through the woods?
>>
>---Well to some extent, we are all creatures of our environments: where
>I live (St Louis area) there is hardly anyplace to ride off road anyway.
>Only one park with decent [multi-use] trails where biking is allowed,
>and because of that it's way too busy. For low-speed technical
>off-roading I'd still agree a upright MTB is best, but if that's your
>preference then don't bother bringing a bike to St Louis.

I've lived in St Lou, used both ends of the thermometer every year - zero every
winter, 100 every summer. No thanks. Here in Tampa the sun is a worse enemy than
the heat. You can acclimate to almost any heat, but the sun here will peel the
skin off. Mostly I ride wooded trails, moving along at speed keeps the airflow
going and me cool enough, though some of the swampier areas are rough. Still the
heat is better than the sun.


>As for off-road recumbents, there are such creatures, and people use
>them for singletrack and fire-road riding. Just not in the St Louis area.
>
>> Ever aspire to riding something that is more than an underpowered car?
>>
>---I said [twice] before--I had upright bikes (both on-road and MTB)
>before recumbents. I already know what both are like.
>
>The thing with an upright bike is that a lot of the effort involved in
>riding doesn't have anything to do with turning the pedals. You need to
>ride 30-50 miles on a recumbent to realize this however. Upright riders
>will test-ride a recumbent and just ride it for a few minutes, and say
>"yea it's more comfortable but it's not that much difference",,, because
>riding their upright bike for that same distance wouldn't result in any
>pain either,,,, so they think both are "about the same". But the longer
>the ride is, the bigger the comfort difference becomes. At 50 miles, the
>comfort/exhaustion difference between the two types is huge.
>
>> Wouldn't it be cool to not have to stop for every curb and sand patch?
>>
>What curbs? There are none where I ride, and I wouldn't be riding on
>sidewalks anyway. As for sand and gravel patches, I usually just ride on
>through.
>
>> Sorry dude, your recumbent is not an alternative for me.
>>
>> Ron
>Not today anyway. Eventually though none of that padding is going to be
>"enough"....

Nah, I'll walk before I'm that limited in my ability to get off the pavement.
Not that I don't ride paved trails and streets and do occasional long road rides
but it isn't about ease or comfort it's more about moving briskly to and through
places I want to be.

Ron
 
In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> writes:

> Sorry dude, your recumbent is not an alternative for me.

I'm happy enough just having bikes that I can store easily,
get through the basement door easily, park easily, and when
I have to -- carry easily.

It's also nice to only need one size of tubes 'n tires per bike.
And, when it wears out, just one length of chain.

But I don't mean to knock all recumbents; I'm sure they fill
niches for different people's needs. I just wish some folks
wouldn't try to portray them as the greatest thing since
sliced bread and the answer to all the world's problems,
while portraying normal bicycles as instruments of torture.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Sorry dude, your recumbent is not an alternative for me.
>
> I'm happy enough just having bikes that I can store easily,
> get through the basement door easily, park easily, and when
> I have to -- carry easily.
>
> It's also nice to only need one size of tubes 'n tires per bike.
> And, when it wears out, just one length of chain.
>
> But I don't mean to knock all recumbents; I'm sure they fill
> niches for different people's needs. I just wish some folks
> wouldn't try to portray them as the greatest thing since
> sliced bread and the answer to all the world's problems,
> while portraying normal bicycles as instruments of torture.

No kidding. It is such a personal taste thing. I ride my wife's
recumbent on occasion, and it gives me a spectacular back ache, even
when properly adjusted for my height. I like the heads-up riding
position, but I need to get up and stretch on my pedals and much prefer
my upright. But then again, there are people who hate uprights. C'est
la vie. -- Jay Beattie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

maddogbubba
ISM ADAMO SADDLES AND KOOBI SADDLES
Replies
1
Views
1K
Road Cycling
brickster
brickster
A
Celeste Saddles?
Replies
2
Views
428
Road Cycling
landotter
L
H
Switched saddles....OUCH!
Replies
22
Views
920
Road Cycling
SlowRider
S
S
Learning, saddles, a rebuild and thanks for your help
Replies
2
Views
441
Road Cycling
Sir Ridesalot
S
C
saddles
Replies
13
Views
379
Road Cycling
ted
T
Top Bottom Back