CruzBike?



(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per DougC:
>> Will an extreme range really be important? Are two people of different
>> heights going to regularly use it? A shorter person probably won't like
>> it for the ground-reach problem, as noted.
>
> Not in the context of multiple users.
>
> I was just hoping that an off-the-shelf version might fit me or
> be easily modified to by lengthening the tube that supports the
> cranks.

Well I can absolutely guarantee that it might fit you, not knowing how
tall you are.
~
 
Joe Bernard wrote:
> On Nov 29, 4:23 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Joe Bernard wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Aaaah I see. OK, settle it. Rans or RANS?
>> Randy Schlitter says "RANS" is correct. End of argument.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
>> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
>> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
> What does he know? Oh, right. I knew it, too, and can't believe I
> typed it wrong the first time. Don't tell my Rocket.

Get down on your knees facing Hays, Kansas, and say one-hundred (100)
"Hail RANS". ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Scott Gordo wrote:
> >
> > From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
> > recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
> > like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
> > of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>
> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.

The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
already jumped out of a tall building.

> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
> these limitations are unimportant.

You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.

'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
suburbs. Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
out in the countryside.

Chalo
 
Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>>
>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>
> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
> already jumped out of a tall building.

With all due respect, commenting on the handling of recumbents would be
better left to those that have some experience of the variety. I have
ridden recumbents that require almost no effort to steer and balance,
and poorly designed others that are barely controllable. There is a far
greater variation in recumbents than there is in upright bicycles.

>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>> these limitations are unimportant.
>
> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.

I never found this to be a significant disadvantage. I prefer NOT to
ride in these odd places, since both pedestrians and motorists will not
be watching for potential conflicts coming from these areas,
substantially increasing the risk of collisions.

> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
> suburbs.

Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with
not difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on
recumbents. :(

> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
> out in the countryside.

I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
choice for long-distance touring.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f97717cd-db43-423a-9861-8661be953e25@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
>> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
>> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
>> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
>> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
>> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
>> already jumped out of a tall building.
>>
>>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>>> these limitations are unimportant.
>> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
>> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
>> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
>> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
>> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.
>>
>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>> suburbs. Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> Chalo is quite correct in everything he says above. Mr. Sherman gets carried
> away by the sole advantage of a recumbent, and that is its comfort as
> compared to an upright. However, when you are old and decrepit like I am, it
> is either ride a recumbent or forget about bikes altogether.
>
> The day may come when even Chalo will think the comfort factor is of supreme
> importance and all those other factors which he now cherishes will be of no
> importance whatever.

One does wonder if Chalo, due to his 2.05-meter tall stature and mass in
the 145 to 175-kilogram range, has ever ridden a recumbent suitable for
him? All the production recumbents I can think of would either have too
short a wheelbase or two flexible of a frame for someone in the 99.9th
percentile of height and mass.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chalo Colina wrote:
> [...]
>>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>>> suburbs.
>> Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with no
>> difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on recumbents.
>> :(
>
> I wonder if Tom Sherman has ever ridden an upright for any length of time?
> The fact is that they will go places easily that a recumbent can only
> negotiate with awkwardness. An upright is like a deer springing through
> traffic; a recumbent is more like a lumbering elephant.
> [...]

I purchased my first quality upright bicycle (a Peugeot P-8 from Andrew
Muzi at Yellow Jersey) in 1982, and my first recumbent (RANS Wave) in
1999. Do the math.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:

>> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
> recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
> upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
> choice for long-distance touring.

Indeed, judging by the use I make of mine, Chalo is wrong. I use
it on Real Roads in the countryside more often than I use it
anywhere else (it is, after all, a specific touring example)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
> >>
>>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>>
>> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
>> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
>> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
>> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
>> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
>> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
>> already jumped out of a tall building.
>
> With all due respect, commenting on the handling of recumbents would be
> better left to those that have some experience of the variety. I have
> ridden recumbents that require almost no effort to steer and balance,
> and poorly designed others that are barely controllable. There is a far
> greater variation in recumbents than there is in upright bicycles.
>
>>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>>> these limitations are unimportant.
>>
>> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
>> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
>> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
>> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
>> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.
>
> I never found this to be a significant disadvantage. I prefer NOT to
> ride in these odd places, since both pedestrians and motorists will not
> be watching for potential conflicts coming from these areas,
> substantially increasing the risk of collisions.
>
>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>> suburbs.
>
> Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with
> not difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on
> recumbents. :(
>
>> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
> recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
> upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
> choice for long-distance touring.
>

Ever recumbent is different. Some are more suitable for riding in one
type of situation other are better in other situation, which is pretty
much the same as diamond frame bicycles. I ride my V2 in town almost
exclusively, even though I have two diamond frames sitting in my garage.
Once the new recumbent rider becomes proficient at riding their
recumbent they will be at home in more and more situations and
conditions. Would I choose to ride my V2 in New York city as a commuter?
Probably not. I would probably choose a short wheel base for that
situation.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> An upright is like a deer springing through
> traffic; a recumbent is more like a lumbering elephant.

A dog with one front leg.

Chalo
 
we ben barbecueing on ours today mmmmmmmmmmmm good xmas ground hog
after we took out dah lectric motor
 
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
> we ben barbecueing on ours today mmmmmmmmmmmm good xmas ground hog
> after we took out dah lectric motor

Well, that clarifies everything.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote

> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.

Such amazing tunnel vision....I've ridden my Stratus XP on the sidewar and
on the grass. Heck, just a few weeks ago I was in Charleston riding in
FestiVELO....along the route we can to a draw bridge that was up to let the
boats through...traffic was backed up...and there was a hill there. So,
rather than waiting...I just got off on the grassy shoulder and rode up the
hill for about 0.5 miles...then hopped off and walked the bike the the front
of traffic...all of the DF riders were standing there walking their bikes
too.

>
> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
> suburbs. Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
> out in the countryside.

Funny what kinds of bad conclusions one can draw from data where n=1. You
obviously have little to no experience with 'bents. And you forget that
riding a LWB bent with low BB in tight spaces is not hard at all, since you
can easly drop a foot down for tight moves.

But for the life of me, I can't understand why I even bother responding to
such closed minded people. If you wish to limit yourself to just riding
DFs, fine with me.

And some bents are great on the open road.

>
> Chalo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back