T
S
Skip
Guest
"T.E.O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?
>
> Please opine.
>
>
There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
pocketbook.
news:[email protected]...
> Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?
>
> Please opine.
>
>
There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
pocketbook.
T
Thomas E Blum
Guest
You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?"
That is a question of religious proportions.
"Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree.
You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height.
Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy. Go to Bent
Rider On Line and read the recumbent guide. Or WISL has a
guide that used to be run by the Washington DC "ungroup"
and Mark M.
Miles of Smiles,
Tom
That is a question of religious proportions.
"Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree.
You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height.
Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy. Go to Bent
Rider On Line and read the recumbent guide. Or WISL has a
guide that used to be run by the Washington DC "ungroup"
and Mark M.
Miles of Smiles,
Tom
A
Arne
Guest
I have ridden both and like the ride of the GR more. I also
have purchased one (GR)..... Is it worth the extra money?
That really depends how much $$ you have.... If I had it to
do over, I might have even gone for the TI GR. The GR hasn't
had many design changes that I am aware of..... when I buy a
bicycle, I figure it is a 10 year investment, and per year,
the cost isn't prohibitive.
Arne
=====================
"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ZLmdnVMGz5Zl7-
[email protected]...
>
> "T.E.O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:MOJ-
> [email protected]...
> > Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?
> >
> > Please opine.
> >
> >
> There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
> Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
> pocketbook.
have purchased one (GR)..... Is it worth the extra money?
That really depends how much $$ you have.... If I had it to
do over, I might have even gone for the TI GR. The GR hasn't
had many design changes that I am aware of..... when I buy a
bicycle, I figure it is a 10 year investment, and per year,
the cost isn't prohibitive.
Arne
=====================
"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ZLmdnVMGz5Zl7-
[email protected]...
>
> "T.E.O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:MOJ-
> [email protected]...
> > Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?
> >
> > Please opine.
> >
> >
> There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
> Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
> pocketbook.
M
Mike
Guest
i think a v2 vrs a tour easy is more inline, as they both
are cro moly.. a GRR to v2 formula wiuld be another good
comparision as they both are aluminum. however arent to many
v2 formula around yet.. i wonder how a V2 formula, fully
socked would rate speed wise to a GRR socked..
are cro moly.. a GRR to v2 formula wiuld be another good
comparision as they both are aluminum. however arent to many
v2 formula around yet.. i wonder how a V2 formula, fully
socked would rate speed wise to a GRR socked..
M
Mike S
Guest
"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height.
>
Tom makes a very valid point. My wife has a Gold Rush. She
went with Easy Racers because of the lower bottom bracket as
well as the availability of and the ease of installation of
the fairing and body sock. The V2 used to come with a
fairing and one can still be installed, but I haven't seen a
V2 with a body or a tail sock. She also felt that the GR was
lighter (not that it is, only that she felt that it was as
well as more responsive). She has been very happy with her
choice. I, on the other hand, having the assignment of
staying with her once she starts to motor in that darn body
sock, sometimes wish she had reconsidered. Decision revolves
around how each bike feels to you. If they are close then
the money difference weighs heavy. But if the GR is a clear
winner I always find that it is better to go with what feels
the best, even at a higher price, than going cheaper and
wishing later you hadn't.
Mike S. St. Louis, Mo.
> You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height.
>
Tom makes a very valid point. My wife has a Gold Rush. She
went with Easy Racers because of the lower bottom bracket as
well as the availability of and the ease of installation of
the fairing and body sock. The V2 used to come with a
fairing and one can still be installed, but I haven't seen a
V2 with a body or a tail sock. She also felt that the GR was
lighter (not that it is, only that she felt that it was as
well as more responsive). She has been very happy with her
choice. I, on the other hand, having the assignment of
staying with her once she starts to motor in that darn body
sock, sometimes wish she had reconsidered. Decision revolves
around how each bike feels to you. If they are close then
the money difference weighs heavy. But if the GR is a clear
winner I always find that it is better to go with what feels
the best, even at a higher price, than going cheaper and
wishing later you hadn't.
Mike S. St. Louis, Mo.
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
> extra $'s?"
>
> That is a question of religious proportions.
>
> "Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
>
> The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
>
> Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> might disagree.
>
> You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height.
Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the
aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also triangulated,
but it looks very monotube). All those little tubes running
every which way strike me as being highly inelegant. The
fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come up with anything new in
their designs for the Tour Easy line of recumbents in over
20 years as far as I can tell. The Easy Racer recumbents are
all over priced too. I think it will cost nearly $2000. now
for a really old fashion looking Tour Easy.
I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
clunky next to it.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
> You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
> extra $'s?"
>
> That is a question of religious proportions.
>
> "Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
>
> The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
>
> Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> might disagree.
>
> You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height.
Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the
aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also triangulated,
but it looks very monotube). All those little tubes running
every which way strike me as being highly inelegant. The
fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come up with anything new in
their designs for the Tour Easy line of recumbents in over
20 years as far as I can tell. The Easy Racer recumbents are
all over priced too. I think it will cost nearly $2000. now
for a really old fashion looking Tour Easy.
I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
clunky next to it.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
H
Howard
Guest
[email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> fashion Tour Easy design
Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument
I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and even
Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
works well enough for enough people to justify its continued
production. The prices, new and used, seem to reflect this
versatility.
In terms of differences between GRR and V2, well, they're
different. GRRs (&TEs) have a ready supplier of bodysocks if
you want to go that way.
Good Luck,
H
news:[email protected]:
>
> Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> fashion Tour Easy design
Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument
I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and even
Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
works well enough for enough people to justify its continued
production. The prices, new and used, seem to reflect this
versatility.
In terms of differences between GRR and V2, well, they're
different. GRRs (&TEs) have a ready supplier of bodysocks if
you want to go that way.
Good Luck,
H
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
Howard <bishop(1199bitshiftleft1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
> >
> > Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> > the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> > appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> > fashion Tour Easy design
>
> Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument.
There is always good taste and then there is bad taste. It
goes without saying which I am in possession of.
> I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
> everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
> something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
> constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and
> even Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
> measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
> something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
> type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
> works well enough for enough people to justify its
> continued production. The prices, new and used, seem to
> reflect this versatility.
The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design. However,
this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit upon
it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.
Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same
to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I
can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very much the
same in their design function and in their appearance
function (aesthetic).
I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
them. It would just look so much better. Recumbents don't
really need to have anything to do with a diamond frame
appearance as has been proven repeatedly with the many
excellent monotube designs.
I do think Rans has the best looking line of recumbents of
any manufacturer. All of their recumbents are triangulated,
but they appear more monotube than otherwise (except for the
Stratus of course). I think Burley is also making a very
handsome line of recumbents now. The Burleys are all
strictly monotubes.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
> [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
> >
> > Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> > the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> > appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> > fashion Tour Easy design
>
> Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument.
There is always good taste and then there is bad taste. It
goes without saying which I am in possession of.
> I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
> everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
> something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
> constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and
> even Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
> measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
> something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
> type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
> works well enough for enough people to justify its
> continued production. The prices, new and used, seem to
> reflect this versatility.
The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design. However,
this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit upon
it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.
Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same
to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I
can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very much the
same in their design function and in their appearance
function (aesthetic).
I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
them. It would just look so much better. Recumbents don't
really need to have anything to do with a diamond frame
appearance as has been proven repeatedly with the many
excellent monotube designs.
I do think Rans has the best looking line of recumbents of
any manufacturer. All of their recumbents are triangulated,
but they appear more monotube than otherwise (except for the
Stratus of course). I think Burley is also making a very
handsome line of recumbents now. The Burleys are all
strictly monotubes.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
H
Howard
Guest
[email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
> there is never any reason to change its design. However,
> this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
> perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit
> upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.
>
> Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
> about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
> same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special
> as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very
> much the same in their design function and in their
> appearance function (aesthetic).
This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the failure
rate for components was high. Inop shifters, brakes, wheel
bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a steakhouse
floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are lousy when wet,
and rain happens.
But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.
>
> I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
> their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
> same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
> them. It would just look so much better.
It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
Creek, I think.
> course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
> line of recumbents now.
Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me Most
of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a Burley
a second look.
news:[email protected]:
>
> The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
> there is never any reason to change its design. However,
> this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
> perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit
> upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.
>
> Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
> about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
> same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special
> as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very
> much the same in their design function and in their
> appearance function (aesthetic).
This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the failure
rate for components was high. Inop shifters, brakes, wheel
bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a steakhouse
floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are lousy when wet,
and rain happens.
But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.
>
> I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
> their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
> same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
> them. It would just look so much better.
It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
Creek, I think.
> course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
> line of recumbents now.
Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me
Mostof the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a Burley
a second look.
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
message <[email protected]>:
>The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
>there is never any reason to change its design.
Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
message <[email protected]>:
>The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
>there is never any reason to change its design.
Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Howard" <bishop(1199<<1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
> > and there is never any reason to change its design.
> > However, this is not true of recumbents. I also believe
> > there is a perfect design for a recumbent too, but no
> > one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
> > the lot.
> >
> > Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
> > about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
> > same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart
> > Special as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are
> > both very much the same in their design function and in
> > their appearance function (aesthetic).
> This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
> milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
> serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
> equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
> miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the
> failure rate for components was high. Inop shifters,
> brakes, wheel bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a
> steakhouse floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are
> lousy when wet, and rain happens.
I was only discussing configuration of the frame. Give a few
inches here and there and a few degrees of angle here and
there -they are essentially the same. You really can't say
that about recumbents. The frames are very different from
one another in their configurations.
> But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
> we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
> Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.
I have never been into components. The mid level stuff is
just fine with me. All I ever ask is that it just work and
not be bothering me with adjustments and repairs.
> > I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
> > their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep
> > the same proportions and measurements exactly as they
> > now have them. It would just look so much better.
> It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
> Creek, I think.
>
> > course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
> > line of recumbents now.
>
> Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me
> Most of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a
> Burley a second look.
I am not sure about the comfort of that seat, but if it is
truly comfy, then I think Burley is on its way. I am not
into lightness or speed much anymore, but a recumbent has
got to handle well and it has got to look well too since
they are all damn expensive.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
> > and there is never any reason to change its design.
> > However, this is not true of recumbents. I also believe
> > there is a perfect design for a recumbent too, but no
> > one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
> > the lot.
> >
> > Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
> > about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
> > same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart
> > Special as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are
> > both very much the same in their design function and in
> > their appearance function (aesthetic).
> This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
> milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
> serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
> equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
> miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the
> failure rate for components was high. Inop shifters,
> brakes, wheel bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a
> steakhouse floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are
> lousy when wet, and rain happens.
I was only discussing configuration of the frame. Give a few
inches here and there and a few degrees of angle here and
there -they are essentially the same. You really can't say
that about recumbents. The frames are very different from
one another in their configurations.
> But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
> we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
> Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.
I have never been into components. The mid level stuff is
just fine with me. All I ever ask is that it just work and
not be bothering me with adjustments and repairs.
> > I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
> > their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep
> > the same proportions and measurements exactly as they
> > now have them. It would just look so much better.
> It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
> Creek, I think.
>
> > course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
> > line of recumbents now.
>
> Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me
> Most of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a
> Burley a second look.
I am not sure about the comfort of that seat, but if it is
truly comfy, then I think Burley is on its way. I am not
into lightness or speed much anymore, but a recumbent has
got to handle well and it has got to look well too since
they are all damn expensive.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email protected] (Edward
> Dolan) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
> >there is never any reason to change its design.
>
> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional
diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist
is set on the bike). I do not see why they should be banned.
However recumbents are a different creature altogether so I
can see why they would be banned.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email protected] (Edward
> Dolan) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
> >there is never any reason to change its design.
>
> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional
diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist
is set on the bike). I do not see why they should be banned.
However recumbents are a different creature altogether so I
can see why they would be banned.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
>> >and there is never any reason to change its design.
>> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
>I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
>traditional diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how
>the cyclist is set on the bike).
You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley delivery
boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering. DFs are
just as broad a church as 'bents. Especially if you extend
DF to include all upwrongs, in which case you start getting
exotic creatures like the Burrows 8-Freight.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
>> >and there is never any reason to change its design.
>> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
>I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
>traditional diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how
>the cyclist is set on the bike).
You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley delivery
boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering. DFs are
just as broad a church as 'bents. Especially if you extend
DF to include all upwrongs, in which case you start getting
exotic creatures like the Burrows 8-Freight.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
G
Gabriel Devault
Guest
I just have to say it...
You are aware a monotube structure is physically inferior to
a triangulated one in every way? Unless one has the
capability to change the monotube dimensions, thickness,
cross section, etc, continuously over the length of the
tube. Which can be done with composites but aint no one
ready to pay that kind of cash.
A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
triangulated design.
Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that because you
dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
agrees with you.
Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells for
less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
business. These are made in the USA, some folks are willing
to pony up a little extra for the quality and peace of mind
buying an Easy Racers ensures.
And some aren't.
But get off of your monotube high horse, monotubes are
demonstratably inferior to well engineered
triangulated frames.
Gabriel DeVault
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "THOMAS E BLUM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
> > extra $'s?"
> >
> > That is a question of religious proportions.
> >
> > "Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
> >
> > The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
> >
> > Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> > might disagree.
> >
> > You would be better advised to consider the design
> > differences. Mainly
the
> > bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high
> > bottom brackets.
They
> > say they get "numb feet" because of the height.
>
> Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also
> triangulated, but it looks very monotube). All those
> little tubes running every which way strike me as being
> highly inelegant. The fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come
> up with anything new in their designs for the Tour Easy
> line of recumbents in over 20 years as far as I can tell.
> The Easy Racer recumbents are all over priced too. I think
> it will cost nearly $2000. now for a really old fashion
> looking Tour Easy.
>
> I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
> several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
> worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
> that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
> clunky next to it.
>
> --
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
You are aware a monotube structure is physically inferior to
a triangulated one in every way? Unless one has the
capability to change the monotube dimensions, thickness,
cross section, etc, continuously over the length of the
tube. Which can be done with composites but aint no one
ready to pay that kind of cash.
A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
triangulated design.
Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that because you
dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
agrees with you.
Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells for
less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
business. These are made in the USA, some folks are willing
to pony up a little extra for the quality and peace of mind
buying an Easy Racers ensures.
And some aren't.
But get off of your monotube high horse, monotubes are
demonstratably inferior to well engineered
triangulated frames.
Gabriel DeVault
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "THOMAS E BLUM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
> > extra $'s?"
> >
> > That is a question of religious proportions.
> >
> > "Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"
> >
> > The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.
> >
> > Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> > might disagree.
> >
> > You would be better advised to consider the design
> > differences. Mainly
the
> > bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high
> > bottom brackets.
They
> > say they get "numb feet" because of the height.
>
> Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
> the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
> appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
> fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also
> triangulated, but it looks very monotube). All those
> little tubes running every which way strike me as being
> highly inelegant. The fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come
> up with anything new in their designs for the Tour Easy
> line of recumbents in over 20 years as far as I can tell.
> The Easy Racer recumbents are all over priced too. I think
> it will cost nearly $2000. now for a really old fashion
> looking Tour Easy.
>
> I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
> several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
> worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
> that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
> clunky next to it.
>
> --
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
T
Tom Sherman
Guest
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...Rans....
This is by far the most ridiculous thing Mr. Dolan has ever
written.
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
> ...Rans....
This is by far the most ridiculous thing Mr. Dolan has ever
written.
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
T
Tom Sherman
Guest
THOMAS E BLUM wrote:
> ... You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height....
Conversely, the primary reason I have seen for people
selling their Easy Racers bicycles is persistent recumbent
but from the upright seating position.
> Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
> long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy....
There is also that bike called the RANS Stratus - of course
it has only been around 20+ years so some people may not yet
be aware of it.
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
> ... You would be better advised to consider the design
> differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
> can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
> feet" because of the height....
Conversely, the primary reason I have seen for people
selling their Easy Racers bicycles is persistent recumbent
but from the upright seating position.
> Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
> long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy....
There is also that bike called the RANS Stratus - of course
it has only been around 20+ years so some people may not yet
be aware of it.
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
T
Tom Sherman
Guest
THOMAS E BLUM wrote:
> ... Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> might disagree....
And who would that be?
Puzzled,
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
> ... Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
> might disagree....
And who would that be?
Puzzled,
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message <mradneArfbb0f-fdRVn-
> [email protected]>:
>
> >> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
> >> >and there is never any reason to change its design.
> >> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
>
> >I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
> >traditional diamond
frame
> >bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on
> >the bike).
>
> You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
> with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
> are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley
> delivery boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering.
> DFs are just as broad a church as 'bents.
But I am struck by how similar all uprights are to one
another and recumbents strike me just the opposite of that.
I am only talking about the frame configuration and how the
cyclist is set on that frame. Everything else about an
upright is nothing but Mickey Mouse to me. It simply doesn't
matter what the frame is made out of or what kind of wheels
and other components with which that frame is furnished. The
shape of the frame determines the bike. I maintain that all
uprights are basically the same.
Get out your new Hostel Shoppe Catalog and have a look
at all the recumbents displayed there. They are all as
different as night and day. They set the cyclist on the
recumbent differently because they are different. That
is always the determining factor and the only one that I
pay any attention to. Like I said, everything else is
Mickey Mouse.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message <mradneArfbb0f-fdRVn-
> [email protected]>:
>
> >> >The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
> >> >and there is never any reason to change its design.
> >> Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.
>
> >I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
> >traditional diamond
frame
> >bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on
> >the bike).
>
> You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
> with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
> are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley
> delivery boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering.
> DFs are just as broad a church as 'bents.
But I am struck by how similar all uprights are to one
another and recumbents strike me just the opposite of that.
I am only talking about the frame configuration and how the
cyclist is set on that frame. Everything else about an
upright is nothing but Mickey Mouse to me. It simply doesn't
matter what the frame is made out of or what kind of wheels
and other components with which that frame is furnished. The
shape of the frame determines the bike. I maintain that all
uprights are basically the same.
Get out your new Hostel Shoppe Catalog and have a look
at all the recumbents displayed there. They are all as
different as night and day. They set the cyclist on the
recumbent differently because they are different. That
is always the determining factor and the only one that I
pay any attention to. Like I said, everything else is
Mickey Mouse.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Gabriel DeVault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just have to say it...
>
> You are aware a monotube structure is physically
> inferior to a
triangulated
> one in every way? Unless one has the capability to change
> the monotube dimensions, thickness, cross section, etc,
> continuously over the length of the tube. Which can be
> done with composites but aint no one ready to pay that
> kind of cash.
>
> A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
> have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
> triangulated design.\
So just how strong does a tube have to be anyway to carry
the weight of a normal human being? Part of the problem is
that many recumbent cyclists are very heavy people, some
weighing close to 250 lbs. So maybe they do need a
triangulated frame. But I continue to be struck by how many
seem to like the looks of the Tour Easy. I believe monotubes
are the wave of the future. They not only look better, but
they must also be easier and cheaper to manufacture. Time
will tell.
> Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
> aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
> Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that
because
> you dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
> agrees with you.
>
> Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells
> for less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
> business. These are made in the
USA,
> some folks are willing to pony up a little extra for the
> quality and peace of mind buying an Easy Racers ensures.
All recumbents are more expensive than they should be due to
their relative rarity. But Easy Racers have really gone up
in their prices over the years and are now top of the line
in price. Thank God for Sun Bicycles and their EZ line of
recumbents. I really feel kind of sorry for anyone who is
just getting into recumbents now as you can't do it for just
a couple of hundred like I did 20 years ago.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> I just have to say it...
>
> You are aware a monotube structure is physically
> inferior to a
triangulated
> one in every way? Unless one has the capability to change
> the monotube dimensions, thickness, cross section, etc,
> continuously over the length of the tube. Which can be
> done with composites but aint no one ready to pay that
> kind of cash.
>
> A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
> have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
> triangulated design.\
So just how strong does a tube have to be anyway to carry
the weight of a normal human being? Part of the problem is
that many recumbent cyclists are very heavy people, some
weighing close to 250 lbs. So maybe they do need a
triangulated frame. But I continue to be struck by how many
seem to like the looks of the Tour Easy. I believe monotubes
are the wave of the future. They not only look better, but
they must also be easier and cheaper to manufacture. Time
will tell.
> Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
> aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
> Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that
because
> you dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
> agrees with you.
>
> Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells
> for less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
> business. These are made in the
USA,
> some folks are willing to pony up a little extra for the
> quality and peace of mind buying an Easy Racers ensures.
All recumbents are more expensive than they should be due to
their relative rarity. But Easy Racers have really gone up
in their prices over the years and are now top of the line
in price. Thank God for Sun Bicycles and their EZ line of
recumbents. I really feel kind of sorry for anyone who is
just getting into recumbents now as you can't do it for just
a couple of hundred like I did 20 years ago.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota