Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That's balanced by lower stability on
> > > > > rough surfaces,
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > >
> > > Yes. Actually less stabile on all surfaces.
> >
> > Incomplete info, eh?
> >
> > Any experience in the field?
> >
> > Doubtful.
> >
> > Height isn't everything, now is it.
> >
> > Them highwheels were oh so stable, huh?
> >
> > Other factors at play, too...
>
> I stated my case complete with relevant physics. Tell us
> more.
Is height the only measure of stability? No.
Recumbents can readily be much longer than uprights, as I mentioned
before. Which is more stable: a crit bike, a touring bike or a tandem?
Recumbents separate the steering plane from the support and
transmission planes. They're all tied together with an upright.
Separation brings more stability. If body weight is bounced around on
an upright that gets transmitted to the handlebars because the hands
are weighted. A recumbent can be jostled around but because the hands
are unweighted their reactions are independent of the jostles.
I also mentioned braking stability: if you hit the brakes hard on an
upright what is happening to your stability? If you ride into a dip or
if your front wheel hits a sizeable hole or depression of any kind,
where's your stability then? The tipping moment is an important aspect
of stability, is it not? With an upright you can easily find your
saddle unweighted due to a wide variety of common road conditions and
go head over heels and acquire the most common of uprighting injuries:
the separated shoulder or broken collarbone from your "stable" free
flight landing. Doesn't happen with hardly any recumbents (can't happen
with many of them).
Stability isn't a single-factor scenario, now is it. Stick balancing
height is a lame way to evaluate a bike. And, of course, no bikes are
judged that way---otherwise the highest bikes would be popular. Of
course, too, you're being specious and using nothing from the real
world of cycling to show your point. Moreover, as I said before, it's
doubtful that you've ridden many 'bents.
But how 'bout them upright fairings? You're already making bikes in
freeform shape out of carbon, why not add aero features which double as
cargo/fender/lighting? Think of it: a carbon unit on the front and one
on the back to add FIVE aspects of functionality (I forget what the
fifth was, but it's in there). Any other innovations do that? Uh, no.
I'm not saying these would be perfect, I'm just saying they'd add more
functionality than any other accessory and would fit in with current
fabrication. Hello?
> --
> Michael Press