Entry level recumbent purchase very soon

[Ken M]

Mike Rice wrote:

>>
>>Ken. if you happen to be here now (6:18 pm EDT) there is a Sun Sport
>>on E-bay closing in 15 minutes that is currently at $450.
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/Black-EZ-Sport-...207282907QQcategoryZ98084QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>>
>>Indiana Mike
>
>
> Excuse me, it's at $415.

Man I tell you I miss all the good deals on E-Bay! I didn't see that
until this morning, I just checked it and it went for the $415, and that
would have been a SUPER deal.

Ken
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Recumbents are all about comfort for the vast majority of us. Speed is
> incidental. It is never fair to compare uprights with recumbents when it
> comes to the comfort factor.

That, and my doctor says to get one. I've got a herniated vertebra
from the Army twelve years ago that's finally caught up with me!

> I continue to believe that uprights are faster than recumbents over all. The
> only time I was ever faster on any of my many recumbents was going downhill.
> If you aren't faster going uphill, you will eventually get dropped by
> uprights every time.

According to the local 'bent LBS -- 300 miles away!!! -- 'bents are
naturally faster:

http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent_faqs.htm

> <SNIP>

 

[NYC XYZ]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well as
> LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid on a
> LWB.

Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
"natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
physics, understand....)

> <SNIP>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Ken M]

NYC XYZ wrote:

>>Recumbents are all about comfort for the vast majority of us. Speed is
>>incidental. It is never fair to compare uprights with recumbents when it
>>comes to the comfort factor.
>
>
> That, and my doctor says to get one. I've got a herniated vertebra
> from the Army twelve years ago that's finally caught up with me!
>
AYE! Well I have some old injuries from a couple of MV accicdents years
ago (10+) and that is why I am going bent.

>
>>I continue to believe that uprights are faster than recumbents over all. The
>>only time I was ever faster on any of my many recumbents was going downhill.
>>If you aren't faster going uphill, you will eventually get dropped by
>>uprights every time.
>
>
> According to the local 'bent LBS -- 300 miles away!!! -- 'bents are
> naturally faster:
>
> http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent_faqs.htm

I have read that too, but I think it may be more of a myth. Unless you
start adding things like front windscreens / fairings and tailsocks and
wheel disc. I just want a recumbent to make riding more comfortable so I
do it more. And maybe with more riding I will become faster.

Ken
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>>>I continue to believe that uprights are faster than recumbents over all.
>>>The
>>>only time I was ever faster on any of my many recumbents was going
>>>downhill.
>>>If you aren't faster going uphill, you will eventually get dropped by
>>>uprights every time.
>>
>>
>> According to the local 'bent LBS -- 300 miles away!!! -- 'bents are
>> naturally faster:
>>
>> http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent_faqs.htm
>
> I have read that too, but I think it may be more of a myth. Unless you
> start adding things like front windscreens / fairings and tailsocks and
> wheel disc. I just want a recumbent to make riding more comfortable so I
> do it more. And maybe with more riding I will become faster.
>
> Ken

I have noted that recumbent cyclists ride their bikes much more than upright
cyclists ride theirs. As a result of all this riding, recumbent cyclists get
stronger and eventually become faster. But everything else being equal,
uprights will always be faster than recumbents. Recumbents don't climb hills
worth a damn - and the world is full of hills.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well as
>> LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid on
>> a
>> LWB.
>
> Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
> given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
> "natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
> physics, understand....)

I am not talking about steering, but balancing. You want to be between the
two wheels with lots of space to boot. A SWB does not give you much leeway.
You are essentially sitting over two wheels which are not very far apart.

In order to appreciate this distinction. you should have a Vision set up SWB
and then set it up LWB. You will be struck by how much easier it is to
handle in the LWB mode.

The chief advantage of a SWB is that they are easier to transport than a
LWB. This is important to many recumbent cyclists and is the main reason why
they get them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[gotbent]

"Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> Since you mention aerodynamic drag on longer rides as a deficiency of
>> riding an upright bicycle with higher handlebars, it is my opinion that
>> a CLWB may not be the best bicycle for you. CLWB bikes with the
>> relatively high seat, low BB and upright seating position are not that
>> aerodynamic, and may be no better than riding a drop bar upright "on
>> the hoods".
>>
> Well I think my diamond frame rides even higher, more upright than a road
> bike "on the hoods".
>
>> I am not suggesting that you need to get a lowracer, highracer or fully
>> faired bike, but a SWB bike with a reasonably high BB and seat recline
>> will do much better in windy conditions. A LWB bicycle with a front
>> fairing can also perform well.
>>
Ken, don't forget that this is only your first bent. Don't overthink this
too much. Buy something you like the looks of, and if you have the chance to
ride it so much the better. If you want something with the potential for
speed, it's gonna cost. OTOH I know a guy who rides a Rebike and terrorizes
the lycra kit boys. Of course he looks like a Studabaker on the outside, but
he has a souped up Caddy engine inside.

If you'd be satisfied with something more utilitarian, a little less sporty
and heavier, it's gonna be a LOT cheaper. Used bents happen (see
www.recumbents.com for a good selection of used bents. If you buy a used
bent that doesn't blend with your objectives, sell it and try something
else. You should be able to recover your investment less freight.


> Well I know that some swb bikes have a lower frontage area, due to higher
> bb and more reclined seat. I experimented with a home-brew swb last
> winter. Due to my lack of knowledge of frame geometry it was a bit
> unstable, plus heavy steel frame made it weight in at over 40+pounds, and
> I had gearing problems as well. But OTOH I did get to ride it enough to
> appreciate the swb layout, which is my I inquired in an earlier post about
> swb bikes for beginners. I don't know much about fairings,except that I
> have read that they improve aerodynamic efficiency.
>
>> The used market may be the better alternative. Bikes such as the RANS
>> Rocket and Vision R-40 (1999 and later R-40's are better) are/were made
>> in relatively large quantities, and if not damaged by crashing or
>> abuse, will likely only require minor work to be fully functional.
>> There are other less common SWB models that occasionally show up on the
>> used market.

Good advice. See link above for a source.
>>
> Well the lbs here that is a dealer for both SUN & CYCLE GENIUS supposedly
> also has some used models. I will inquire about them on Tuesday when I go
> for a test ride.
>
>> There are also some older LWB bikes (e.g. RANS Stratus, Easy Racers
>> Tour Easy) that may fall into your price range. Just be aware that
>> since these bikes were expensive when new, those selling for less than
>> $1,000 will be quite old. The main concern here will be that they might
>> be equipped with things like 6-speed freewheels, so upgrading to modern
>> drive trains could be expensive.
Of course, when these were new, they were state of the art, and probably
work well enough for a first time bike. You can still buy six (6) speed
chain.

And of course, with any older
>> bicycles, the frame should be inspected for signs of damage and fatigue
>> cracking. Also, these bicycles perform much better with front fairings,
>> so I would look for a used bike with the fairing included.
>>
>
> Thanks for the advise.
>
> Ken
> --
> [T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
> calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
> per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist
>
> Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/
>
>
>

Just buy a Tailwind, dude!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Mike Rice]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:38:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I have noted that recumbent cyclists ride their bikes much more than upright
>cyclists ride theirs. As a result of all this riding, recumbent cyclists get
>stronger and eventually become faster. But everything else being equal,
>uprights will always be faster than recumbents. Recumbents don't climb hills
>worth a damn - and the world is full of hills.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
HI Ed,

Have you seen the video of a P-38 blowing by the diamond frames going
uphill?

Indiana Mike
>

 

[Mike Rice]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:17:25 -0500, Ken M <[email protected]> wrote:

>NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>>>Recumbents are all about comfort for the vast majority of us. Speed is
>>>incidental. It is never fair to compare uprights with recumbents when it
>>>comes to the comfort factor.
>>
>>
>> That, and my doctor says to get one. I've got a herniated vertebra
>> from the Army twelve years ago that's finally caught up with me!
>>
>AYE! Well I have some old injuries from a couple of MV accicdents years
>ago (10+) and that is why I am going bent.
>
>>
>>>I continue to believe that uprights are faster than recumbents over all. The
>>>only time I was ever faster on any of my many recumbents was going downhill.
>>>If you aren't faster going uphill, you will eventually get dropped by
>>>uprights every time.
>>
>>
>> According to the local 'bent LBS -- 300 miles away!!! -- 'bents are
>> naturally faster:
>>
>> http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent_faqs.htm
>
>I have read that too, but I think it may be more of a myth. Unless you
>start adding things like front windscreens / fairings and tailsocks and
>wheel disc. I just want a recumbent to make riding more comfortable so I
>do it more. And maybe with more riding I will become faster.
>
>Ken

A truly laid back recumbent is much more aerodynamic than an upright,
and should be faster on the flats and in rolling terrain.

Everybody passes me on my Tour Easy going uphill. Nobody passes me n
my Tour Easy going Downhill. I'm sure I've just not been around the
right combination of rider & bike or AI couldn't say that. Most of my
riding is solo, I'm basing the above generalizations on my experience
riding the Hilly Hundred.

When I was researching & test riding I asked the local bent dealer if
bents wree faster than uprights, he said 'faster on the flasts, faster
down hills, two out of three ain't bad' ;-)

Indiana Mike

 

[Mike Rice]

On 3 Jan 2006 14:07:41 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well as
>> LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid on a
>> LWB.
>
>Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
>given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
>"natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
>physics, understand....)
>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

From my test rides I believe that a SWB will have a steeper learning
curve. Once you get past that there are some very nice handling SWB's
out there. And I bet there are some LWB models with handling less
refined than the Tour Easy I ride (or the Tour Easy clone of Mr.
Dolan's).

Indiana Mike

Indiana MIke

 

[HH]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:38:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>I have noted that recumbent cyclists ride their bikes much more than
>>upright
>>cyclists ride theirs. As a result of all this riding, recumbent cyclists
>>get
>>stronger and eventually become faster. But everything else being equal,
>>uprights will always be faster than recumbents. Recumbents don't climb
>>hills
>>worth a damn - and the world is full of hills.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>>
> HI Ed,
>
> Have you seen the video of a P-38 blowing by the diamond frames going
> uphill?
>
> Indiana Mike
>>
>

Please note bicycle frames don't blow by anything unless there is a really
strong wind blowing.

In the video you reference might the differing capabilities and motivations
of the riders have been a factor in who made it to the top of the hill
first? I suspect this would be especially so if the P-38 rider was being
video taped for promotional purposes.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >
> > Recumbents are all about comfort for the vast majority of us. Speed is
> > incidental. It is never fair to compare uprights with recumbents when it
> > comes to the comfort factor.
>
> That, and my doctor says to get one. I've got a herniated vertebra
> from the Army twelve years ago that's finally caught up with me!

You should strongly consider a recumbent with rear suspension, as it
will greatly reduce the shock transmitted to your spine, unless you do
something stupid like getting "big air" and bottom out the suspension.

> > I continue to believe that uprights are faster than recumbents over all. The
> > only time I was ever faster on any of my many recumbents was going downhill.
> > If you aren't faster going uphill, you will eventually get dropped by
> > uprights every time.
>
> According to the local 'bent LBS -- 300 miles away!!! -- 'bents are
> naturally faster:
>
> http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent_faqs.htm

Some recumbents are faster overall that some uprights and some are
slower.

For instance, a CLWB with an upright, high seat and low bottom bracket
(e.g. BikeE) will be slower overall than a drop-bar road bike in most
conditions.

A state of the art lowracer (e.g. Velokraft NoCom) will be faster
uphill to a certain grade depending on rider strength (probably as
steep as 10% for a very strong rider) and will be considerably faster
than an upright TT bike under normal conditions. [1]

A recumbent such as a Burley HepCat or RANS Rocket will be faster than
a drop bar road bike on flat to rolling terrain and in windy
conditions, but will be slower if a lot of climbing at grades > 6% is
involved.

[1] Riding in a foot (30.5 cm) of standing water would put the NoCom at
a definite disadvantage compared to a regular road bike or highracer.


--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

gotbent wrote:
> "Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ...OTOH I know a guy who rides a Rebike and terrorizes
> the lycra kit boys. Of course he looks like a Studabaker on the outside, but
> he has a souped up Caddy engine inside.

This rider wouldn't also happen to own a "low" Optima Baron?

> ... Just buy a Tailwind, dude!

Channeling Bob Cardone? [1]

Here is how to make a RANS Tailwind go faster. [2]

[1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Cordone.htm>.
[2] < http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]

> A truly laid back recumbent is much more aerodynamic than an upright,
> and should be faster on the flats and in rolling terrain.

Aerodynamics is the one big advantage that recumbents have over uprights.
But even so, it cannot make up for the more aggressive position of the rider
on an upright bike, most especially going uphill.

> Everybody passes me on my Tour Easy going uphill. Nobody passes me n
> my Tour Easy going Downhill. I'm sure I've just not been around the
> right combination of rider & bike or AI couldn't say that. Most of my
> riding is solo, I'm basing the above generalizations on my experience
> riding the Hilly Hundred.
>
> When I was researching & test riding I asked the local bent dealer if
> bents wree faster than uprights, he said 'faster on the flasts, faster
> down hills, two out of three ain't bad' ;-)

I don't believe they are faster on the flats despite the aerodynamic
advantage. I have done many week long tours which consist of hundreds of
riders on all kinds of bikes, and recumbents do not fare well on these day
long rides with respect to speed as compared to uprights. But they are fast
enough and the comfort is priceless.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Recumbents can get faster than uprights when they are faired, especially
if a complete body fairing is used.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> >
> > My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well as
> > LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid on a
> > LWB.
>
> Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
> given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
> "natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
> physics, understand....)

I disagree. SWB bikes are much easier to balance at low speed,
especially when climbing and on loose surfaces. However, LWB bikes
generally have greater directional stability at speed. (It should be
noted that the handling of LWB bikes is also sensitive to the amount of
steering tiller.)

To balance, the imaginary line formed by the two tire contact patches
has to be brought under the combined center of gravity of the rider and
bicycle. With a short wheelbase, this requires less motion of the
rider, contributing to low speed handling.

I (and many others) find "true" USS to be rather awkward. The normal
hand position for making precise motions is in front of the chest
(where primates naturally hold objects they are manipulating). The much
better arrangement is Beside Seat Steering (BSS) "side-sticks" as seen
on this HP Velotechnik Street Machine GT. In fact, true USS is rare to
see, as it has been replaced by BSS.

[1] <http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/index_e.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3 Jan 2006 14:07:41 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well
>>> as
>>> LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid on
>>> a
>>> LWB.
>>
>>Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
>>given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
>>"natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
>>physics, understand....)
>
> From my test rides I believe that a SWB will have a steeper learning
> curve. Once you get past that there are some very nice handling SWB's
> out there. And I bet there are some LWB models with handling less
> refined than the Tour Easy I ride (or the Tour Easy clone of Mr.
> Dolan's).

I have several SWB recumbents and I regard them as a lot of fun and more for
sport riding than any kind of serious touring. For that, I will insist on a
LWB. When I am touring, I do not want to be distracted by the peculiarities
of SWB handling. I want the security and stability that only a LWB can
provide.

Even quite bad LWBs are superior to SWBs in the above respect. In fact, I
don't believe I ever met a LWB that I didn't like. I sure can't say the same
for SWB.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]

> Some recumbents are faster overall that some uprights and some are
> slower.
>
> For instance, a CLWB with an upright, high seat and low bottom bracket
> (e.g. BikeE) will be slower overall than a drop-bar road bike in most
> conditions.

These type of bikes wil be considerably slower than uprights. Just no
comparison at all.

> A state of the art lowracer (e.g. Velokraft NoCom) will be faster
> uphill to a certain grade depending on rider strength (probably as
> steep as 10% for a very strong rider) and will be considerably faster
> than an upright TT bike under normal conditions. [1]

Nope - don't believe it! I have never seen a recumbent that was faster going
uphill than an upright. Again, all conditions must be equal respecting the
strength of the riders and the quality of the bikes.

I would love to see a Tour de France type of ride that pitted uprights
against recumbents, with or without drafting permitted. And it would have to
include mountains too. My feeling is that it would be no contest at all.

> A recumbent such as a Burley HepCat or RANS Rocket will be faster than
> a drop bar road bike on flat to rolling terrain and in windy
> conditions, but will be slower if a lot of climbing at grades > 6% is
> involved.

It will be close on the flats, but I believe an upright will win in the end.
A windy condition is essentially the same as going uphill, unless it is a
steady tailwind. Recumbents slow down amazingly even on very slight grades.
I have to walk up 6% grades when I am riding a recumbent, but I know several
upright cyclists who can climb 9% grades. Try that on a recumbent sometime!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well
>> > as
>> > LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid
>> > on a
>> > LWB.
>>
>> Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
>> given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
>> "natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
>> physics, understand....)
>
> I disagree. SWB bikes are much easier to balance at low speed,
> especially when climbing and on loose surfaces. However, LWB bikes
> generally have greater directional stability at speed. (It should be
> noted that the handling of LWB bikes is also sensitive to the amount of
> steering tiller.)

All recumbents are not much good at very slow speeds and they are all
terrible on loose surfaces. If you want to go slow on bad surfaces, get a
mountain bike.

> To balance, the imaginary line formed by the two tire contact patches
> has to be brought under the combined center of gravity of the rider and
> bicycle. With a short wheelbase, this requires less motion of the
> rider, contributing to low speed handling.

A LWB is OK at slow speeds once you get used to all the tiller. Damned if I
don't always feel safer (less likely to fall) on LWB than I do on SWB. Maybe
you could explain that? I think it is due primarily to the lower BB of most
LWB.

> I (and many others) find "true" USS to be rather awkward. The normal
> hand position for making precise motions is in front of the chest
> (where primates naturally hold objects they are manipulating). The much
> better arrangement is Beside Seat Steering (BSS) "side-sticks" as seen
> on this HP Velotechnik Street Machine GT. In fact, true USS is rare to
> see, as it has been replaced by BSS.

USS is always way too twitchy. It just never feels quite right.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"The normal hand position for making precise motions is in front of the
chest (where primates naturally hold objects they are manipulating)." - Tom
Sherman

 

[gotbent]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> gotbent wrote:
>> "Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> ...OTOH I know a guy who rides a Rebike and terrorizes
>> the lycra kit boys. Of course he looks like a Studabaker on the outside,
>> but
>> he has a souped up Caddy engine inside.
>
> This rider wouldn't also happen to own a "low" Optima Baron?

It's rumored that he also has a Cobra Bike for when he wants to go realllly
faaaassssssssttttttt.
>
>> ... Just buy a Tailwind, dude!
>
> Channeling Bob Cardone? [1]

I kinda miss him on the group.
>
> Here is how to make a RANS Tailwind go faster. [2]
>
> [1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Cordone.htm>.
> [2] < http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[gotbent]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > My main objection to SWB recumbents is that they do not handle as well
>> > as
>> > LWB. You can easily get into difficulties on a SWB that you can avoid
>> > on a
>> > LWB.
>>
>> Please explain. They seem like they should be easier to turn with,
>> given their shorter length, for one thing! USS also seems more
>> "natural" and thus should "handle better." (Not that I really know my
>> physics, understand....)
>
> I disagree. SWB bikes are much easier to balance at low speed,
> especially when climbing and on loose surfaces. However, LWB bikes
> generally have greater directional stability at speed. (It should be
> noted that the handling of LWB bikes is also sensitive to the amount of
> steering tiller.)
>
> To balance, the imaginary line formed by the two tire contact patches
> has to be brought under the combined center of gravity of the rider and
> bicycle. With a short wheelbase, this requires less motion of the
> rider, contributing to low speed handling.
>
> I (and many others) find "true" USS to be rather awkward. The normal
> hand position for making precise motions is in front of the chest
> (where primates naturally hold objects they are manipulating).

From spending a lot of time in the primate house for a drawing class, I
would say that the object most manipulated by primates is their joint.

The much
> better arrangement is Beside Seat Steering (BSS) "side-sticks" as seen
> on this HP Velotechnik Street Machine GT. In fact, true USS is rare to
> see, as it has been replaced by BSS.
>
> [1] <http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/index_e.html>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----