I must disagree with one point in the FAQ

I must disagree with a point in the faq: http://www.bentrideronline.com/FAQ/index.html

I have been riding a recumbent for a year and I love it (a high bottom bracket-- a RANS Rocket), but
I must insist that you do not get as good balance on high bottom bracket recumbents, where your feet
are over the wheels. The problem may not be as accute as on low bottom bracket recumbents.

Balance is an issue from my experience because I have fallen twice. I could not recover from running
into bad road conditions from which I am certain I would have recoveredon a upright, but found it
more difficult to do so than an upright bike. There also some other situations where my steed is not
so trusty.

I think that on a upright your feet straddling each side of the bike below the center of gravity act
as conterbalances so that if you tires slip out from underneath you, you can use your legs to
counter balance. On high bottom bracket, if you tires slip out from underneath, you have barely any
chance to recover because you legs are above the center of gravity and you cannot shift your weight
to recover. I am certain that more experience riders can recover from a greater range of situations,
but he still lacks the counterbalancing advantage.

These are my experiences. Though they were caused by my stupidity, on an upright I would have been
able to recover, I am certain.

1) I was riding on wet pavement a took a fast turn and the bike slide out from underneath me and
fell. (Blood, lost skin.)
2) I rode of a 2 inch curb at a shallow angle and fell. (Blood, lost skin.)
3) On lose gravel I can fall any moment. (Haven't yet, but have to go at a snails pace.)
4) I dread hitting stones about 1/2 inch in diameter or more, especially if I am turn at relativey
high speed. (Haven't yet, but when I hear the ping, I think twice.)

I would however trade off this danger factor for the comfort factor. But I would recommend low
bottom bracket bikes for the faint of heart. I am somewhat gun shy now that I have fallen off twice.
Something like the Strada is a death machine for the beginner in my opinion.

I do think we need some empirical studies to determine whether the safety claims of recumbent
advocates and columnists correspond to reality. If some consumer protection agency or government
agency does decide to check the saftey record of recumbents, recumbent advocates can cheer that they
have been noticed by these venerable organizations.

 

I think your points are well made. I have a 2002 Rocket myself. I really like the bike, but I've
learned to be respectful. The first time I rode it, I crashed within 15 minutes. That's the first
and only time I've crashed the bike. It's been about 1300 miles. Not only do you have to stay aware
that you don't have the same counterbalance you had on the Upright, you also have to develop good
concentration and a nice touch in order to control that 20-inch front wheel through that long riser.
You can hit a gnarly little bump, lose poise, twist the riser and find yoursef in an interesting
configuration when the front wheel touches down...

However, because I'm more over the rear wheel on the Rocket than I'm over the rear wheel on an
Upright, I like the way the rear wheel responds on the Rocket when it slides. Even without
counterbalancing, the rear wheel feels controllable when it slides. When both wheels lock-up,
because of the short wheelbase, the bike slides nicely. It doesn't whip.

mc

Alpha Beta wrote:

> I must disagree with a point in the faq: http://www.bentrideronline.com/FAQ/index.html
>
> I have been riding a recumbent for a year and I love it (a high bottom bracket-- a RANS Rocket),
> but I must insist that you do not get as good balance on high bottom bracket recumbents, where
> your feet are over the wheels. The problem may not be as accute as on low bottom bracket
> recumbents.
>
> Balance is an issue from my experience because I have fallen twice. I could not recover from
> running into bad road conditions from which I am certain I would have recoveredon a upright, but
> found it more difficult to do so than an upright bike. There also some other situations where my
> steed is not so trusty.
>
> I think that on a upright your feet straddling each side of the bike below the center of gravity
> act as conterbalances so that if you tires slip out from underneath you, you can use your legs to
> counter balance. On high bottom bracket, if you tires slip out from underneath, you have barely
> any chance to recover because you legs are above the center of gravity and you cannot shift your
> weight to recover. I am certain that more experience riders can recover from a greater range of
> situations, but he still lacks the counterbalancing advantage.
>
> These are my experiences. Though they were caused by my stupidity, on an upright I would have been
> able to recover, I am certain.
>
> 1) I was riding on wet pavement a took a fast turn and the bike slide out from underneath me and
> fell. (Blood, lost skin.)
> 2) I rode of a 2 inch curb at a shallow angle and fell. (Blood, lost skin.) 3) On lose gravel I
> can fall any moment. (Haven't yet, but have to go at a snails pace.)
> 4) I dread hitting stones about 1/2 inch in diameter or more, especially if I am turn at relativey
> high speed. (Haven't yet, but when I hear the ping, I think twice.)
>
> I would however trade off this danger factor for the comfort factor. But I would recommend low
> bottom bracket bikes for the faint of heart. I am somewhat gun shy now that I have fallen off
> twice. Something like the Strada is a death machine for the beginner in my opinion.
>
> I do think we need some empirical studies to determine whether the safety claims of recumbent
> advocates and columnists correspond to reality. If some consumer protection agency or government
> agency does decide to check the saftey record of recumbents, recumbent advocates can cheer that
> they have been noticed by these venerable organizations.

--
Replace "crap" with "warnerm" in my email addr

 

Alpha Beta wrote:
> ... I would however trade off this danger factor for the comfort factor. But I would recommend low
> bottom bracket bikes for the faint of heart. I am somewhat gun shy now that I have fallen off
> twice. Something like the Strada is a death machine for the beginner in my opinion....

I would rather land a few times on my hip and/or elbow from a low recumbent than land once on my
head from an upright.

According to witnesses, I crashed at low speed (reason undetermined), probably less than 10 mph on
an upright. I went over the handlebars and landed on the right side of my face. When I woke up in
the operating room, I had several teeth that were put back in by the emergency room doctor, had my
face stitched back together in several places, and had trouble seeing due to a concussion. [1] It
was almost a week for the swelling to go down enough for me to see out my right eye, and I ate out
of straw for over a month.

[1] FWIW, I was not wearing a h*lm*t, as it was very uncommon to use one in 1981.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's

 

I think the issue is not so much high bottm bracket as it is the short wheel base. And those skinny
tires. "Alpha Beta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I must disagree with a point in the faq: http://www.bentrideronline.com/FAQ/index.html
>
> I have been riding a recumbent for a year and I love it (a high bottom bracket-- a RANS Rocket),
> but I must insist that you do not get as good balance on high bottom bracket recumbents, where
> your feet are over the wheels. The problem may not be as accute as on low bottom bracket
> recumbents.
>
> Balance is an issue from my experience because I have fallen twice. I
could
> not recover from running into bad road conditions from which I am certain
I
> would have recoveredon a upright, but found it more difficult to do so
than
> an upright bike. There also some other situations where my steed is not so trusty.
>
> I think that on a upright your feet straddling each side of the bike
below
> the center of gravity act as conterbalances so that if you tires slip out from underneath you, you
> can use your legs to counter balance. On high bottom bracket, if you tires slip out from
> underneath, you have barely any chance to recover because you legs are above the center of gravity
> and you cannot shift your weight to recover. I am certain that more experience riders can recover
> from a greater range
of
> situations, but he still lacks the counterbalancing advantage.
>
> These are my experiences. Though they were caused by my stupidity, on an upright I would have been
> able to recover, I am certain.
>
> 1) I was riding on wet pavement a took a fast turn and the bike slide out from underneath me and
> fell. (Blood, lost skin.)
> 2) I rode of a 2 inch curb at a shallow angle and fell. (Blood, lost
skin.)
> 3) On lose gravel I can fall any moment. (Haven't yet, but have to go at a snails pace.)
> 4) I dread hitting stones about 1/2 inch in diameter or more, especially
if
> I am turn at relativey high speed. (Haven't yet, but when I hear the ping,
I
> think twice.)
>
> I would however trade off this danger factor for the comfort factor. But I would recommend low
> bottom bracket bikes for the faint of heart. I am somewhat gun shy now that I have fallen off
> twice. Something like the
Strada
> is a death machine for the beginner in my opinion.
>
> I do think we need some empirical studies to determine whether the safety claims of recumbent
> advocates and columnists correspond to reality. If some consumer protection agency or government
> agency does decide to
check
> the saftey record of recumbents, recumbent advocates can cheer that they have been noticed by
> these venerable organizations.
>

 

I have the original 1.75" Primo Comets. I don't think I will go for anything skinnier.

I think if I hit a stone while going straight I am okay - but you can feel the bike slip to one
side. But if I hit loose surfaces while turning or if the surface slippery, (or jumping the curb
like I did) it is a scary situation.

I can ride on rollers, so I know that my balance is as good as it will get.

I read on this newsgroup about 1 month ago about some having a compound ankle fracture as a result
of a slide. Mind you he was riding in winter on some frost covered road. So maybe it is stupidity,
as in my two incidents, that causes these dramatic wipe outs. I am just glad it didn't happen with
on coming traffic. Has anyone had a dramatic wipe out in a non-risk taking, unexpected moment?

Oh, yes, when I first started, I think I fell down 6 times. But these were not serious wipeouts
since these were low speed heel strike related falls. (Broke two MirrorCycles though.) The road rash
wipeouts occured after I was much more confident about riding recumbents.

"Warren Kinsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think the issue is not so much high bottm bracket as it is the short
wheel
> base. And those skinny tires.

 

AB:

So unhook your feet and stick them to the side, if you start to lose control. (It works, but beware
of leg suck.)

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Alpha Beta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I must disagree with a point in the faq: http://www.bentrideronline.com/FAQ/index.html
>
> I have been riding a recumbent for a year and I love it (a high bottom bracket-- a RANS Rocket),
> but I must insist that you do not get as good balance on high bottom bracket recumbents, where
> your feet are over the wheels. The problem may not be as accute as on low bottom bracket
> recumbents.
>
> Balance is an issue from my experience because I have fallen twice. I
could
> not recover from running into bad road conditions from which I am certain
I
> would have recoveredon a upright, but found it more difficult to do so
than
> an upright bike. There also some other situations where my steed is not so trusty.
>
> I think that on a upright your feet straddling each side of the bike
below
> the center of gravity act as conterbalances so that if you tires slip out from underneath you, you
> can use your legs to counter balance. On high bottom bracket, if you tires slip out from
> underneath, you have barely any chance to recover because you legs are above the center of gravity
> and you cannot shift your weight to recover. I am certain that more experience riders can recover
> from a greater range
of
> situations, but he still lacks the counterbalancing advantage.
>
> These are my experiences. Though they were caused by my stupidity, on an upright I would have been
> able to recover, I am certain.
>
> 1) I was riding on wet pavement a took a fast turn and the bike slide out from underneath me and
> fell. (Blood, lost skin.)
> 2) I rode of a 2 inch curb at a shallow angle and fell. (Blood, lost
skin.)
> 3) On lose gravel I can fall any moment. (Haven't yet, but have to go at a snails pace.)
> 4) I dread hitting stones about 1/2 inch in diameter or more, especially
if
> I am turn at relativey high speed. (Haven't yet, but when I hear the ping,
I
> think twice.)
>
> I would however trade off this danger factor for the comfort factor. But I would recommend low
> bottom bracket bikes for the faint of heart. I am somewhat gun shy now that I have fallen off
> twice. Something like the
Strada
> is a death machine for the beginner in my opinion.
>
> I do think we need some empirical studies to determine whether the safety claims of recumbent
> advocates and columnists correspond to reality. If some consumer protection agency or government
> agency does decide to
check
> the saftey record of recumbents, recumbent advocates can cheer that they have been noticed by
> these venerable organizations.
>

 

Squints at picture of Rocket Notes that BB is as near as makes no odds level with the top of
the seat cushion Scratches head, wonders how this bike can be described as having a "high
bottom bracket"

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Squints at picture of Rocket Notes that BB is as near as makes no odds level with the top of the
> seat cushion Scratches head, wonders how this bike can be described as having a "high bottom
> bracket"

Paul shows Dave pictures of LWB and CLWB recumbents where the BB is well below the level of the seat
for comparison.

 

> So maybe it is stupidity, as in my two incidents,

No, no NO!! By definition, if you are intelligent enough to have selected a 'bent as you ride, you
are not stupid. So.. enough with the negative self-talk already!

GeoB

 

Paul Bruneau wrote:
> "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Squints at picture of Rocket Notes that BB is as near as makes no odds level with the top of the
>> seat cushion Scratches head, wonders how this bike can be described as having a "high bottom
>> bracket"
>
> Paul shows Dave pictures of LWB and CLWB recumbents where the BB is well below the level of the
> seat for comparison.

Colin shows Paul a picture of the Zeyphr (http://www.zephyr.nl/english/product2.htm) which I've just
started commuting on, where the Bottom Bracket is higher than the seat. I'm just getting my nerve
back after having the bike dissappear out from under me on the ice last Monday, and I would
certainly concur that the bike is harder to balance than the upright I used to ride - perhaps
because of having your legs up so high, or maybe its just because I'm still a novice at 'benting
. When it goes, there is very little time to correct before you're down
on the tarmac. At least you tend to land on your arse from that low down - I'm considering getting
steel skid plates to go in my back pockets of my trousers!

Colin

laid-back AT spiralpathways DOT co DOT uk

 

Colin:

I've gone for as long as an hour riding on 15 inch rollers on a V-Rex without requiring any support.
You have to react more quickly than with an upright, because of the "pedulum effect" mostly. It may
also be easier to regain control in the event of a severe loss of control, because of the ability to
counter-balance. But the point is that you can train yourself to compensate for the "inadequacies"
of the "high" BB design, and doing so will give you a margin of safety.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Colin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Bruneau wrote:
> > "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Squints at picture of Rocket Notes that BB is as near as makes no odds level with the top of
> >> the seat cushion Scratches head, wonders how this bike can be described as having a "high
> >> bottom bracket"
> >
> > Paul shows Dave pictures of LWB and CLWB recumbents where the BB is well below the level of the
> > seat for comparison.
>
> Colin shows Paul a picture of the Zeyphr (http://www.zephyr.nl/english/product2.htm) which I've
> just started commuting on, where the Bottom Bracket is higher than the seat. I'm just getting my
> nerve back after having the bike dissappear out from under me
on
> the ice last Monday, and I would certainly concur that the bike is harder
to
> balance than the upright I used to ride - perhaps because of having your legs up so high, or maybe
> its just because I'm still a novice at 'benting
> . When it goes, there is very little time to correct before you're down
> on the tarmac. At least you tend to land on your arse from that low down - I'm considering getting
> steel skid plates to go in my back pockets of my trousers!
>
> Colin
>
> laid-back AT spiralpathways DOT co DOT uk

 

Indeed, the bb on that bike is higher than the seat, but it still looks lower than a Rocket's bb.

The original guy said the Rocket's bb was high. Dave wondered how it could be considered high. It
seems high to me.

Although a "high bb" might be defined as one that is higher than the seat, I don't remember that
being a given.

Colin wrote:

> Colin shows Paul a picture of the Zeyphr (http://www.zephyr.nl/english/product2.htm) which I've
> just started commuting on, where the Bottom Bracket is higher than the seat. I'm just getting my
> nerve back after having the bike dissappear out from under me on the ice last Monday, and I would
> certainly concur that the bike is harder to balance than the upright I used to ride - perhaps
> because of having your legs up so high, or maybe its just because I'm still a novice at 'benting
> . When it goes, there is very little time to correct before you're down
> on the tarmac. At least you tend to land on your arse from that low down - I'm considering getting
> steel skid plates to go in my back pockets of my trousers!
>
> Colin
>
> laid-back AT spiralpathways DOT co DOT uk

 

Paul Bruneau wrote:
> ... The original guy said the Rocket's bb was high. Dave wondered how it could be considered high.
> It seems high to me....

The BB on the RANS Rocket feels low to me - that is one reason why I like the Rocket for riding in
urban areas. The BB on my Sunset is a "moderate" 6 1/2 inches (~15 1/2 cm) above the seat, while the
dual ISO 406-mm wheel Wishbone RT that I used to own had a "high" BB at about 13 inches (~31 cm)
above seat height.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's

 

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Paul Bruneau wrote:
>
>>... The original guy said the Rocket's bb was high. Dave wondered how it could be considered high.
>>It seems high to me....
>
>
> The BB on the RANS Rocket feels low to me - that is one reason why I like the Rocket for riding in
> urban areas. The BB on my Sunset is a "moderate" 6 1/2 inches (~15 1/2 cm) above the seat, while
> the dual ISO 406-mm wheel Wishbone RT that I used to own had a "high" BB at about 13 inches (~31
> cm) above seat height.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's

Everything you said sounds good to me, except that you are talking like a "high bb" is solely
determined by how much over the seat it is (rather than its absolute height). That is the part that
I don't remember being stated in the earlier post where the height of the Rocket BB was first
brought up. I don't really have any reason to argue about it, so I'll just shut up now

 

Perhaps we need low, medium and high in relation to bottom brackets. and to assign the adjective
according to the relationship between seat height and BB height rather than the absolute value of
the latter.

FWIW, I've seen Juerg Birkenstock warming up for a race on rollers atop his low racer -
http://www.speedbikes.ch/comet.html

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

Paul Bruneau wrote:
>
> Everything you said sounds good to me, except that you are talking like a "high bb" is solely
> determined by how much over the seat it is (rather than its absolute height). That is the part
> that I don't remember being stated in the earlier post where the height of the Rocket BB was first
> brought up. I don't really have any reason to argue about it, so I'll just shut up now

Other than when starting and stopping, the absolute height of the BB on a bike has nothing to do
with rider position, so it is not in and of itself relevant to the handling qualities of the bike
except in the starting/stopping situations mentioned.

Of course, there will be a correlation between absolute BB height, relative BB height to the
seat, and the location of the combined bike and rider center of gravity, which does have an
effect on handling.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's