Interesting looking bike

[Judith]

Whilst driving the car today, I overtook a woman on a strange-looking
bike [1]. It was noticeable because its back wheel was much wider
than its front one.

I would say that the rear tyre was about 3 inches wide and the front
one looked about half that. The bike seemed to have quite a long
wheelbase - but she was riding it with the saddle really low down, so
her knees were bent all of the time so it was hard to get the whole
thing in perspective as we passed each other. I can't remember what
diameter the wheels looked - but they both seemed to be the same
diameter and were probably somewhere between 20" and 24" - ie not full
size road-bike wheels but not a shopper either.

Does this just sound like a one-off or is this a new fashion that I
haven't seen before? I'd have thought that having that much contact
with the tarmac would create a bit of drag, but she seemed to be
picking her way through the traffic well enough.

Any ideas?

Judith
[1] And "YES", she did overtake *me* a couple of minutes later!

 

[wafflycat]

"Judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whilst driving the car today, I overtook a woman on a strange-looking
> bike [1]. It was noticeable because its back wheel was much wider
> than its front one.
>


Like any of these?

http://search.ebay.co.uk/cruiser_Cy...adisZ200QQsaslcZ3QQsbrftogZ1QQsofocusZunknown

Cheers, helen s

 

[C.J.Patten]

"Judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whilst driving the car today, I overtook a woman on a strange-looking
> bike [1]. It was noticeable because its back wheel was much wider
> than its front one.
>
> I would say that the rear tyre was about 3 inches wide and the front
> one looked about half that. The bike seemed to have quite a long
> wheelbase - but she was riding it with the saddle really low down, so
> her knees were bent all of the time so it was hard to get the whole
> thing in perspective as we passed each other. I can't remember what
> diameter the wheels looked - but they both seemed to be the same
> diameter and were probably somewhere between 20" and 24" - ie not full
> size road-bike wheels but not a shopper either.
>
> Does this just sound like a one-off or is this a new fashion that I
> haven't seen before? I'd have thought that having that much contact
> with the tarmac would create a bit of drag, but she seemed to be
> picking her way through the traffic well enough.
>
> Any ideas?

Ah ha! Chopper bikes perhaps? (you did say "not a 'shopper'" as opposed to
"not a 'chopper'?")

http://www.northwest-chopper-bicycle.com/WELCOME.html

I think just about every major bike maker has one in their line up.
Here's a Schwinn:
http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_detail.php?id=523

I recall seeing many other brands - KHS, Specialized, Norco... of varying
style and detail.

According to my LBS (to think - I was actually going to type out "local bike
shop") most of these bikes are actually very comfortable to ride despite
what seems to be radical geometry. I guess they're sort of "semi-recumbant?"

C.

 

[Judith]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:12:50 +0100, "wafflycat"
<waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:

>Like any of these?
>
>http://search.ebay.co.uk/cruiser_Cy...adisZ200QQsaslcZ3QQsbrftogZ1QQsofocusZunknown

Coo! Yes, it looked like a few of those. There's a whole world of
bikes out there that I know nothing about!

Judith

 

[Judith]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:21:14 -0400, "C.J.Patten"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Does this just sound like a one-off or is this a new fashion that I
>> haven't seen before? I'd have thought that having that much contact
>> with the tarmac would create a bit of drag, but she seemed to be
>> picking her way through the traffic well enough.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
>Ah ha! Chopper bikes perhaps? (you did say "not a 'shopper'" as opposed to
>"not a 'chopper'?")
>
>http://www.northwest-chopper-bicycle.com/WELCOME.html

So, it was a Chopper for grown-ups.

Wierd!


Thanks for the replies.

Judith

 

[Peter Clinch]

Judith wrote:
> Whilst driving the car today, I overtook a woman on a strange-looking
> bike [1]. It was noticeable because its back wheel was much wider
> than its front one.

These seem to be the New Black for the more pose-oriented Yoof. Main
problem would seem to be the huge tyres will be both heavy and have more
rolling resistance than a, errr, very rollingly resistive thingy, and I
can't think the extended wheelbase will help them nose through traffic.

If you want to be seriously laid back and Do It Properly, then the Dark
Side Is Beckoning and you should check out recumbents. For example,
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tdn1.htm

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/

 

[Judith]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Judith wrote:
> > Whilst driving the car today, I overtook a woman on a strange-looking
> > bike [1]. It was noticeable because its back wheel was much wider
> > than its front one.
>
>
> If you want to be seriously laid back and Do It Properly, then the Dark
> Side Is Beckoning and you should check out recumbents. For example,
> http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tdn1.htm
>

I see a 'bent quite often on my way to work. I overtook it this
morning while he was whizzing along the cycle path to my left. As I
stopped in the left-turn lane at traffic lights, he pulled off the
cycle path and moved into the gap between the two lanes of traffic. My
first thought was "Eeeek! There's no way he can balance that thing at
slow speed that close to my lovely car!", so I moved left a bit to give
him a bit more room. (I tend to do this for all cyclists anyway.)

How *DO* you balance on a recumbent!?

Also, it seems to me that the riding position must put a strain on the
back of the neck. Is this something that you get used to, or is it not
a problem at all?

I don't think I'm ready for the Dark Side yet. I like to be able to
see where I'm going!

Judith

 

[Peter Clinch]

Judith wrote:

> How *DO* you balance on a recumbent!?

There are many questions where the answer is "pretty much the same as on
any other bike", and this is one of them! "How do you start?", "How do
you get up hills?", "how do you steer?" are others.

> Also, it seems to me that the riding position must put a strain on the
> back of the neck. Is this something that you get used to, or is it not
> a problem at all?

It's not a problem for me at all, if it is then you just add a headrest
(a standard option on many models). What puts a much greater strain on
the neck is looking /up/ to see where you're going from the crouch
typical of many upright bikes. Think if it's easier for you to drop
your head forwards, or pull it up backwards...

> I don't think I'm ready for the Dark Side yet. I like to be able to
> see where I'm going!

That's precisely one of the advantages though. My default view on the
'bent is where I'm going, while on an upright it's more often a piece of
tarmac just beyond the front wheel. Quite useful for short range action
stuff like mountain biking, but just means a dull view with more limited
advance warning of obstacles on the road. Especially if you're doing
Serious Work on an upright then it's quite natural to look /down/ rather
than *out*. That isn't seeing where you're going though!

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/

 

[ian henden]

"Judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:21:14 -0400, "C.J.Patten"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Does this just sound like a one-off or is this a new fashion that I
>>> haven't seen before? I'd have thought that having that much contact
>>> with the tarmac would create a bit of drag, but she seemed to be
>>> picking her way through the traffic well enough.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>>Ah ha! Chopper bikes perhaps? (you did say "not a 'shopper'" as opposed to
>>"not a 'chopper'?")
>>
>>http://www.northwest-chopper-bicycle.com/WELCOME.html
>
> So, it was a Chopper for grown-ups.

No. It was a chopper for older cyclists.

>
> Wierd!
They are, aren't they!!

>