Entry level recumbent purchase very soon



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

[...]
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.


Maybe if you were locked up all of your life in a cage open to the
inspection of other primates, that is about all you would ever do too.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> 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.


Ed Dolan makes no sense here - his comparison is only valid in that a
rider on a closed loop will spend more time riding uphill and against
headwinds (assuming steady wind) than riding downwind and downhill.

Saying that a recumbent that is slower than an upright uphill also
means the recumbent will have a similar disadvantage against a headwind
is so ridiculous that it does not deserve detailed rebuttal.

> 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!


Check out these results from a Masters National Time Trial. [1] Scroll
down to "Sorted by fastest time ridden". Yep, the winner AA was on his
carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer Velokraft NoCom [The
Fastest Unfaired Bike in the Known Universe]. Note that many of the
competitors were younger that AA.

[1] <http://www.ambikerace.com/2005/results/masters.nat.tt.05.pdf>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> 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....


Ed Dolan must have never ridden a BikeE FX. I spent some time on one
riding through soft gravel patches on purpose, without any problems.

My recumbent Dragonflyer is easy to balance while sitting still, going
slowly and on loose surfaces. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.

>
> Ed Dolan makes no sense here - his comparison is only valid in that a
> rider on a closed loop will spend more time riding uphill and against
> headwinds (assuming steady wind) than riding downwind and downhill.


That is correct, but when you riding against a headwind or a crosswind, it
is as if you are riding uphill. Only a tailwind is helpful for an increase
in speed. To tell the truth, I would rather ride in hills than to constantly
have to put up with the kind of wind we have here in SW Minnesota.

> Saying that a recumbent that is slower than an upright uphill also
> means the recumbent will have a similar disadvantage against a headwind
> is so ridiculous that it does not deserve detailed rebuttal.


No, it is the same. I am not any faster riding against a headwind than I am
riding up a hill. Recumbent cyclists make way too much of the aerodynamic
advantage. It is very slight and is nonexistent in a headwind just as it is
in going up a hill. Even a fairing does not add much advantage although it
does help a bit in a headwind situation.

Mr. Sherman knows nothing of wind. You have to get out on the wide open
plains to know what wind is like. The one thing that has always ruined
cycling for me is the wind. It takes all the fun out of it. I would prefer
hills to the wind, but an upright is better in both those conditions.
Recumbents really suck on uphills. All bikes suck in the wind, including
uprights.

>> 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!

>
> Check out these results from a Masters National Time Trial. [1] Scroll
> down to "Sorted by fastest time ridden". Yep, the winner AA was on his
> carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer Velokraft NoCom [The
> Fastest Unfaired Bike in the Known Universe]. Note that many of the
> competitors were younger that AA.
>
> [1] <http://www.ambikerace.com/2005/results/masters.nat.tt.05.pdf>.


I am way too lazy to go to any links.

The fact is that recumbents are horrible climbing hills and everyone knows
this except for those few who have axes to grind for one reason or another.
I recommend that Mr. Sherman take his recumbent bike and go to near Jackson,
Wyoming and try to get up Teton Pass. That is a 9% grade. Lots of luck!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> 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....

>
> Ed Dolan must have never ridden a BikeE FX. I spent some time on one
> riding through soft gravel patches on purpose, without any problems.


But still, it can't compare to any garden variety mountain bike. Recumbents
just don't work very well off of a paved road.

> My recumbent Dragonflyer is easy to balance while sitting still, going
> slowly and on loose surfaces. ;)


Yes, Mr. Sherman and I know all about the advantages of a recumbent trike.
There is presently an inch of ice covering the streets and walks here in
town today and I am actually safer on my trike than I am walking. The one
thing you have to watch out for though are cars sliding into you. Anyone who
rides a two wheeler when the streets are icy is simply crazy.

But recumbent trikes overall are slower than two wheel recumbents. That is
the major trade off that you have to be willing to make for their
advantages. I do not mind making it at all when I am by myself, but when I
am on a bike ride with others, it is just too slow. Then I have to be on my
two wheelers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Hello,
Please say where I can download and see this video where recumbents
kills DF bikes uphill?
Thanks a lot.
 
On 6 Jan 2006 03:22:45 -0800, "Vytautas" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hello,
>Please say where I can download and see this video where recumbents
>kills DF bikes uphill?
>Thanks a lot.




Here's the link for the video:

http://www.lightningbikes.com/cyber.htm

I guess I should caveat that it does appear to be on the
manufacturer's websight.

You might be interested in seeing what the Bicicle Man had to say
about his experiences with the Lightning P-38 Recumbent here:

http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/lightning/lightning_p38_f40.htm

Indiana Mike

PS- I haven't had the pleasure of riding a P-38. I would like to, but
unfortunately I am not one of those wealthy enough to own a stable of
recumbents.I have daydreamed of one, or at least a V-Rex to give me a
different slant than my Tour Easy.
 
"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6 Jan 2006 03:22:45 -0800, "Vytautas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>Please say where I can download and see this video where recumbents
>>kills DF bikes uphill?
>>Thanks a lot.

>
> Here's the link for the video:
>
> http://www.lightningbikes.com/cyber.htm
>
> I guess I should caveat that it does appear to be on the
> manufacturer's websight.
>
> You might be interested in seeing what the Bicicle Man had to say
> about his experiences with the Lightning P-38 Recumbent here:
>
> http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/lightning/lightning_p38_f40.htm
>
> Indiana Mike
>
> PS- I haven't had the pleasure of riding a P-38. I would like to, but
> unfortunately I am not one of those wealthy enough to own a stable of
> recumbents.I have daydreamed of one, or at least a V-Rex to give me a
> different slant than my Tour Easy.


I rode the P-38 briefly once and I did not like it at all. It felt as though
your legs were coming back into your gut. Also, the crank is too high.
However, I think a recumbent bike like this will climb hills better than
most other types of recumbents.

But all recumbents are the pits on uphills. The sooner we admit this and
stop pretending otherwise the better off we will be. Upright cyclists will
have nothing to do with us when we lie about being fast going uphill. It is
just so absurd!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

PS. Mike, get the V-Rex and forget about the P-38. RANS is a much better
company in every respect than Lightning.
 
Ken M wrote:
> I posted a message here "Short wheel base for beginner" a little over a
> week ago, and I got some good advise. However from some recent net
> research most seem to recommend a different type of bike. So now I am
> more leaning towards a lwb or a clwb model. There are three that I have
> found so far that seem to be in my "entry level" price range. The SUN
> EZ-1SC and the CYCLE GENIUS STARLING and the CYCLE GENIUS SPARROW. I am
> really leaning towards the EZ-1. My reasoning on this one is the
> reputation of SUN. And the fact that most (all?) the EZ models were
> designed by the folks at EASY RACERS. Does any one own a EZ-1SC? If so
> how do you like it? I am test riding one on Tuesday. How about the two
> CYCLE GENIUS bikes? The dealer I am going to test ride the SUN is also a
> CYCLE GENIUS dealer.
>
> Ken

Well I'm a bit late maybe but anyway--I started out on a SWB as my first
recumbent. A Sun EZ-Speedster, exactly. The reason for going to a
recumbent at all was for comfort; the reason for the SWB was that it
would fit into the back of an SUV. I don't tour or usually go over 50
miles per local ride, and I tend to ride alone, so speed wasn't an issue.

The Speedster is way more comfortable than any upright I ever had (and I
had $1500 road and MTB's) but it is rather more twitchy than I'd like. I
don't think there's anything *wrong* with how it's made, and I have
ridden a few other bents and the feeling (of SWB twitchiness) was pretty
consistent. CLWB's and LWB's seemed far more relaxed-handling. Having to
be concerned with where the wheels always are takes quite a bit out of
just enjoying the ride.

Also at 6'2", the Speedster has turned out to really be a bit too short
for me. The farther I move the seat back the more my legs like it, but
the seat is all the way back, can't go any further. I'm looking at
getting a Cycle Genius Falcon (LWB) and a hitch rack, when I have the
money. I know the Falcon is long enough because when the Falcon seat is
all the way back, I can't even keep my feet on the pedals. ~~~~~
 
Ken M wrote:
> I posted a message here "Short wheel base for beginner" a little over a
> week ago, and I got some good advise. However from some recent net
> research most seem to recommend a different type of bike. So now I am
> more leaning towards a lwb or a clwb model.


IMHO this is the wrong way to look for a bike. Don't worry about the
configuration, worry about the functional design purpose, so if you want
to go touring look at tourers in any wheelbase. Once you've got a few
marked out you can try give them a ride and see how they go.

People who buy DF racers go into the shop and ask for racers or maybe
"road bikes". They don't ask for "700c wheels and drop handlebars", if
they do they might end up with a touring bike that doesn't do what
they're after very well. Same applies to 'bents: start with what you
want to *do* on it, not how its laid out.

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/