Next best thing to a Brooks Pro



C

* * Chas

Guest
I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
ridden.

A while back I looked for a replacement for an 15 year old Avocet Gel
saddle for an old mountain bike. After doing some web searching I bought
a WTB Pure V Race saddle.

It's kind of gaudy with the silver metallic trim and all but the wide
"whale tail" back portion gives the same support as a Brooks Pro or
probably a B17. It has a "love channel" groove molded down the middle
and the nose is softly padded and dropped down to avoid pressure in
personal areas.

Since then I bought 2 more WTBs, one for another MTB and one for my
newest retro road bike which I put to the test yesterday on a 47 mile
ride. It was very comfortable but not quite as good as a Brooks.

It's almost too wide in the rear because when I'm "up on the rivets" my
inner thighs contact the sides of the saddle. Aside from that, I'd
recommend it to Brooks riders as a wet weather alternative.

Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.

Chas.
 
D

DougC

Guest
* * Chas wrote:
> I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
> 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
> ridden.
> .....
> Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
>
> Chas.
>


If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.

Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
and no saddle can fix that.

The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
materials to usefully connect two wheels.

Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
~
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:54:17 -0500, DougC <[email protected]>
wrote:

>upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
>and no saddle can fix that.


LOL.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
In article <1l7%[email protected]>, DougC <[email protected]>
wrote:

> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old
> > with 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle
> > I've ever ridden. ..... Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >

>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are
> more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.


Yay, the biannual recumbent zealot thread! It's about time.

> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.


Except that I don't have any ass pain related to riding my upright bike,
even doing 180 mile rides. At 250-375 miles, I start to get a little
sore. Listening to the bitching I hear from recumbent riders about
their butts after 50 or 100 miles, it doesn't seem that there is any
real improvement. Also, I noticed that recumbent riders generally
finished behind the standard bike riders at the 2003 PBP, despite
getting a head start.

> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the
> Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame
> is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least
> amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.


No design of anything is the zenith, until it's the last one made.

> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
> with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride
> a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall. ~


More of an idiot's question, I'd say. Why make such a divisive issue
out of it? I've tried recumbents, didn't like 'em. I have no pain
issues with my bikes, so why switch? For me, recumbents are not
inherently superior. They create more problems that they solve IMHO-
for one thing, I couldn't get one down the stairs into my basement
storage area. And there's the freakishly long chain with all the
various kludges to try to deal with that.

If recumbents work better for you, then ride 'em! I have no trouble
with that. I know a number of enthusiastic recumbent riders and
builders, who love riding their bikes. I think that's great, and if a
recumbent gets someone out riding a bike who wouldn't ride otherwise, I
think that's even better. But I don't understand this militant attitude
from recumbentists who seem miffed that the whole world has not adopted
their fancy. Fortunately folks like you are in the minority of
recumbent riders.
 
M

Mike Ellis

Guest
DougC wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
>> I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
>> 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
>> ridden.
>> .....
>> Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
>>
>> Chas.
>>

>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
>

I get no saddle pain at all even during an all day ride, however sat in
a car seat I have pain after about an hour. I wish I could somehow fix
my Brooks saddle into the car!
 
C

* * Chas

Guest
"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1l7%[email protected]
> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old

with
> > 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've

ever
> > ridden.
> > .....
> > Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >
> > Chas.
> >

>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are

more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
>
> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the

Ford
> Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is

simply
> the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>
> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems

with
> saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
> ~


How about a "date with the Turk" seat? It's a seat post with only a
fully rounded top..... A leftover from Vlad the Impaler.

It's good that you are happy with your recumbent bike. Once I get a seat
properly adjusted I have very few seat comfort issues.

Cars on the other hand give me seating problems. I have a Volvo noted
for their much touted anatomically designed seating and a Ford Taurus. I
have seating problems with both of them and most other modern cars that
I've driven or ridden in. I've spent over a thousand dollars during the
20 years on orthopedic car seat devices.

Chas.
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1l7%[email protected]>, DougC <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > * * Chas wrote:
> > > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old
> > > with 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle
> > > I've ever ridden. ..... Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> > >

> >
> > If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are
> > more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> > crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> > got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.

>
> Yay, the biannual recumbent zealot thread! It's about time.
>
> > Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> > upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> > problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> > and no saddle can fix that.

>
> Except that I don't have any ass pain related to riding my upright bike,
> even doing 180 mile rides. At 250-375 miles, I start to get a little
> sore. Listening to the bitching I hear from recumbent riders about
> their butts after 50 or 100 miles, it doesn't seem that there is any
> real improvement....


This has nothing to do with seat comfort per say, but is related to
overuse of poorly trained muscles.

It is possible to do very occasional long distance rides on properly
designed recumbents in comfort, while the same does not appear to be
true of uprights (based on the complaint of upright club riders on the
first rides of spring while the re-acclimate to upright saddles).

> Also, I noticed that recumbent riders generally finished behind the standard bike riders
> at the 2003 PBP, despite getting a head start.


Which proves nothing, since the relative fitness of the riders is
unknown. Put a bunch of fat old geezers (FOGs) on state of the art
performance recumbents and a group of UCI professionals on English
3-speed roadsters, and see which group is faster.

> > The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the
> > Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame
> > is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least
> > amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.

>
> No design of anything is the zenith, until it's the last one made.
>
> > Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
> > with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride
> > a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> > then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> > bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> > lighter/better-climbing bike overall. ~

>
> More of an idiot's question, I'd say. Why make such a divisive issue
> out of it? I've tried recumbents, didn't like 'em. I have no pain
> issues with my bikes, so why switch? For me, recumbents are not
> inherently superior. They create more problems that they solve IMHO-
> for one thing, I couldn't get one down the stairs into my basement
> storage area. And there's the freakishly long chain with all the
> various kludges to try to deal with that.


Ever consider that the population of regular upright riders may well
consist of persons who have a greater than normal tolerance for sitting
on an upright saddle? If there are people who find uprights
uncomfortable despite "proper fit", would you rather they not take up
cycling? Then there are the "newbie's" who may well give up on
cycling when they try it and find it initially uncomfortable - is that
a good thing?

> If recumbents work better for you, then ride 'em! I have no trouble
> with that. I know a number of enthusiastic recumbent riders and
> builders, who love riding their bikes. I think that's great, and if a
> recumbent gets someone out riding a bike who wouldn't ride otherwise, I
> think that's even better. But I don't understand this militant attitude
> from recumbentists who seem miffed that the whole world has not adopted
> their fancy. Fortunately folks like you are in the minority of
> recumbent riders.


And I do not understand why so many upright riders are downright rude,
and feel the need to give unsolicited lectures on upright bicycle fit
or to make unsolicited snide and/or derogatory comments. No, I am not
talking about Usenet, but real life.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
D

Donald Gillies

Guest
I find that when i'm at the gym, i ride two types of bicycles : an
upright training bicycle, and the same bicycle (same maker) in
recumbant position.

For me, maximum watts are generated when leaning over the bars of a
standard upright bicycle. If I sit more upright, my heart rate
immediately races and i end up having to bend over forward again to
achieve maximum watts.

So is the advantage of a recumbant 100% in wind resistance? According
to my experiments, I am a weaker cyclist when riding in the recumbant
position, at least from my perspective.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Donald Gillies wrote:
> I find that when i'm at the gym, i ride two types of bicycles : an
> upright training bicycle, and the same bicycle (same maker) in
> recumb[e]nt position.
>
> For me, maximum watts are generated when leaning over the bars of a
> standard upright bicycle. If I sit more upright, my heart rate
> immediately races and i end up having to bend over forward again to
> achieve maximum watts.


Is this sustainable power output or anaerobic power output?

What little evidence that exists indicates that maximum anaerobic power
is significantly greater in the upright position than the recumbent
position, while the picture for sustainable power is less clear.

> So is the advantage of a recumb[e]nt 100% in wind resistance? According
> to my experiments, I am a weaker cyclist when riding in the recumb[e]nt
> position, at least from my perspective.


At this point, I believe there still needs to be more research done to
answer these questions.

One point that needs to be made is that recumbent performance should
NOT be generalized, since the variations in recumbent performance
between different designs are greater than those for upright bicycles.
The differences are not only in weight, rolling resistance and
aerodynamic drag, but the effect of riding position on performance.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
DougC wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old with
> > 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've ever
> > ridden.
> > .....
> > Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >
> > Chas.
> >

>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.


here we go again..why don't you go find another -bent specific NG to
wallow in?

OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
a saddle sore or anything else like that. Have you ever had irritation
from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
your 'bent??
>
> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
> Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
> the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> materials to usefully connect two wheels.


Let me knwo when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fronge' of bicycles.
>
> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
> saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall.


I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
goes.
 
D

DougC

Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
> a saddle sore or anything else like that. Have you ever had irritation
> from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
> your 'bent??

Recumbent seats do not have straps, sillybean.
As to the condition of your rear end, that is not an appropriate subject
for this newsgroup.

> Let me knOw when 'bents are mainstream.

How sad, the mark of a sheeple....

> I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
> them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
> goes.
>

Well most are probably already made in the far east--but even then, as I
said. If you bought a diamond frame, you bought the cheapest solution
there is. ...And for someone with "Campagnolo" in their name, it would
seem odd that you would be one to complain about prices.

[end]
 
C

* * Chas

Guest
"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1l7%[email protected]
> * * Chas wrote:
> > I have 4 Brooks Pro saddles, the best one being over 35 years old

with
> > 25k to 35k miles on it. It's still the most comfortable saddle I've

ever
> > ridden.
> > .....
> > Saddles are VERY personal things, YMMV.
> >
> > Chas.
> >

>
> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are

more
> than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
>
> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> and no saddle can fix that.
>
> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the

Ford
> Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is

simply
> the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> materials to usefully connect two wheels.
>
> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems

with
> saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> lighter/better-climbing bike overall.
> ~


Thoughts on recumbent bikes:

Of the 10 or so recumbent riders I've talked to about their bikes over
the years, most of them rode these because of some physical problem, the
others were interestingly eccentric. Both reasons are valid
justifications.

I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I found
it difficult to balance.

My personal concerns are about being able to easily balance the bike and
getting my feet down quickly in an emergency situation. I had a hip
replacement and I was told to avoid impact to my new joint which meant
giving up running, skiing or anything else that could overload the hip.

I work out several morning a week on a tread climber, elliptical and a
recumbent stationary bike. I use the recumbent during my cool down phase
where I work on increasing my cadence because it has foot straps and the
uprights don't. I've experienced some low back discomfort on the
recumbent stationary.

I think that many people who have comfort problems with the seats on
upright bikes are not familiar with the different adjustments that they
can make to their saddles. Also everyone's anatomy is different and no
one saddle will be comfortable for everyone. It's difficult to find the
most comfortable saddle.

I tried more than a dozen different seats before I rode a Brooks Pro and
decided that it was the seat for me. That was over 30 years ago. The
light padding on the early Avocet gel seats was great for off road but
not for long distance riding.

I use an angle gage and a meter stick to adjust my saddles so that they
start off at the same position on all 5 of my road bikes. Over a period
of weeks I may need to make a minor adjustment of 1/2° in the nose angle
or 1/8" in the height, more for pressure on my hands than my butt.

If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.

Chas.
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
* * Chas wrote:
>
> Thoughts on recumbent bikes:
>
> Of the 10 or so recumbent riders I've talked to about their bikes over
> the years, most of them rode these because of some physical problem, the
> others were interestingly eccentric. Both reasons are valid
> justifications.
>
> I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I found
> it difficult to balance....


This would have made the recumbent bicycle a pre-WW2 antique or a
homebuilt - not exactly relevant to the better designs currently
available.

Recumbent balance at lower speeds is different from an upright, since
the steering forces are lighter and less upper body moment is used, but
it is no more difficult with sufficient practice.

I find starting out on a recumbent easier than an upright, since the
recumbent starts out much nearer to vertical and there is no need to
shift one's body backward, reducing the main actions required from 4 to
2. (The other 2 are steering for balance and bringing the down foot to
the pedal).

> If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.


I meet plenty of upright riders that show unsolicited hostility simply
because I am riding a recumbent bicycle. (And no, I have not tried to
evangelize the benefits of recumbents to them, asked to join their
rotating paceline, asked to draft, etc.)

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > ...
> > If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats are more
> > than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts. Also the
> > crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are nice too. I've
> > got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.
> >
> > Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes.... why is it that
> > upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass pain
> > problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are simply poor,
> > and no saddle can fix that.

>
> here we go again..why don't you go find another -bent specific NG to
> wallow in?


Is this rec.bicycles.that.peter.chisholm.approves.of.tech?

At what popularity level does something have to be for it to be proper
to be discussed on rec.bicycles.tech? Are high wheel ("penny-farthing")
bicycles an acceptable subject, since they appear to be rarer than
recumbents? What about folding uprights? Downhill MTB? Bike for rider's
with a mass greater than 150 kg?

Does the "promotional" aspect bother you? Should we ban discussing the
advantages of "well built conventional wheels" over "boutique" wheels?
Or the "superiority" of components made by an Italian manufacturer over
than of a Japanese manufacturer?

> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
> a saddle sore or anything else like that.


Do you represent 100% of the healthy human population? Are those not up
to your superior standard not worthy of riding in comfort?

> Have you ever had irritation
> from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
> your 'bent??


What are you talking about?

> > The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than the Ford
> > Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle frame is simply
> > the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the least amount of
> > materials to usefully connect two wheels.

>
> Let me knwo when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fronge' of bicycles.


What is a 'lunatic fronge' (sic)?

Nice to see your acceptance of non-conformity in others (not).

> > Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems with
> > saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not ride a
> > recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as well".... So
> > then,,,, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat post on upright
> > bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain, and have a
> > lighter/better-climbing bike overall.

>
> I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
> them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
> goes.


With most bike shop employees and owners having close-minded attitudes
like Mr. Chisholm's, the recumbents would not sell even if they were
superior in every objective and subjective way.

Did a recumbent rider **** in your beer, or do recumbent offend you for
some other reason?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
Tom Sherman writes:

>>> ...
>>> If you'd switch to recumbent bikes, you'd find that "most seats
>>> are more than comfortable enough", even without padded shorts.
>>> Also the crank-forward bikes (the "sport series") from RANS are
>>> nice too. I've got a Fusion, it's quite lovely.


>>> Just like with cars, motorcycles, boats, airplanes... why is it
>>> that upright bicycles are the only vehicles that have this "ass
>>> pain problem"? ...It's because upright bicycle ergonomics are
>>> simply poor, and no saddle can fix that.


>> here we go again... why don't you go find another -bent specific NG
>> to wallow in?


> Is this rec.bicycles.that.peter.chisholm.approves.of.tech?


> At what popularity level does something have to be for it to be
> proper to be discussed on rec.bicycles.tech? Are high wheel
> ("penny-farthing") bicycles an acceptable subject, since they appear
> to be rarer than recumbents? What about folding uprights? Downhill
> MTB? Bike for rider's with a mass greater than 150 kg?


I find odd that you believe that your choice of bicycle needs to be
pushed at others repeatedly by you and those who believe that all
other bicyclists are fools for sitting on an conventional upright
bicycle instead of some variety of back resting type.

> Does the "promotional" aspect bother you? Should we ban discussing
> the advantages of "well built conventional wheels" over "boutique"
> wheels? Or the "superiority" of components made by an Italian
> manufacturer over than of a Japanese manufacturer?


You don't seem to recognize the extreme minority of recumbent two
wheelers in a world of bicycling, here and in countries where human
powered cycles are widely used. In fact, where bicycles and their
derivatives are most widely used, recumbents are as good as
non-existent.

>> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
>> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.


Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
issue.

> Do you represent 100% of the healthy human population? Are those
> not up to your superior standard not worthy of riding in comfort?


You are assuming that they aren't riding in comfort. Consider
millions of riders who have no other vehicle.

>> Have you ever had irritation from your skin pushing through on the
>> straps of the lawn chair you have on your 'bent?


> What are you talking about?


>>> The safety bicycle is no more the zenith of bicycle design than
>>> the Ford Model-T is the zenith of car design. The upright bicycle
>>> frame is simply the cheapest solution come up with, requiring the
>>> least amount of materials to usefully connect two wheels.


>> Let me know when 'bents are mainstream. The design has been around for
>> decades but they still occupy the 'lunatic fringe' of bicycles.


> What is a 'lunatic fringe'?


> Nice to see your acceptance of non-conformity in others (not).


The lunacy resides with those who keep telling others how misguided
they are in riding conventional bicycles. Just take your beliefs and
post them in wreck.recumbent and be done with it. This is not a
religious matter although I see much faith with the minority sect.

>>> Here is a fun question--it seems that so many people have problems
>>> with saddle pain on uprights. But many of these people will not
>>> ride a recumbent because "it is heavier, it doesn't climb as
>>> well"... So then, why not just get rid of the saddle and seat
>>> post on upright bikes? You'd eliminate a major source of pain,
>>> and have a lighter/better-climbing bike overall.


>> I have a idea also, go to Taiwan, make these cheaper, and try to
>> sell them to bike shops throughout the US, Europe and Asia, let me
>> know how it goes.


> With most bike shop employees and owners having close-minded
> attitudes like Mr. Chisholm's, the recumbents would not sell even if
> they were superior in every objective and subjective way.


Ooh! Now its other peoples fault that recumbents are
under-represented on the road. Are you telling me that there are no
recumbentists capable of operating a bicycle shop? Locally we have a
bicycle shop that allots much space to recumbents, yet sales are
minuscule. It's not like you can't buy a recumbent in this are, it's
more like there aren't many interested customers.

> Did a recumbent rider **** in your beer, or do recumbent offend you
> for some other reason?


You are trying hard to ignore that your spiel is old as the hills and
we've heard it too often. Just keep your personal matters to yourself
and most of us will feel better about it.

Jobst Brandt
 
J

JeffWills

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
<snip>
>
> >> OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy
> >> winkie, a saddle sore or anything else like that.

>
> Well, so what. I can say the same for my sitting on a bicycle but
> don't mention it because saddle soreness is generally a sign of not
> riding much or riding on wet clothing for a long time. It's not an
> issue.
>

<snip>
> Jobst Brandt


Watch the levels of reference, Jobst- that was Peter telling everyone
he doesn't suffer from "sleepy winkie", not Tom.

FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
all, for different reasons.

Jeff
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Ever consider that the population of regular upright riders may well
> consist of persons who have a greater than normal tolerance for sitting
> on an upright saddle?


No, I have not. I am conceive of the state of affairs
quite otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for
sitting. Those who insist on this paradigm quit or buy
a recumbent. Second, riders do not tolerate their
saddle; they get stronger and consequently put less
weight on the saddle. Third, almost every rider finds a
saddle that suits them very well. I have.

You see many questions about saddles, and hear many
reports of people uncomfortable on their bicycle in
this technical newsgroup. Seriously, is this a good
premise for inferring universal pain on upright
bicycles?

> If there are people who find uprights
> uncomfortable despite "proper fit", would you rather they not take up
> cycling? Then there are the "newbie's" who may well give up on
> cycling when they try it and find it initially uncomfortable - is that
> a good thing?


People new to the sport typically associate with people
who have adapted, learn their methods, get stronger,
get comfortable.

--
Michael Press
 
C

* * Chas

Guest
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts on recumbent bikes:

<snip>
> > I rode a recumbent bike for a few minutes about 30+ years ago. I

found
> > it difficult to balance....

>
> This would have made the recumbent bicycle a pre-WW2 antique or a
> homebuilt - not exactly relevant to the better designs currently
> available.
>

It was a recumbent from the mid 1970s. I figure that designs have
improved over time.

<snip>

> > If you enjoy riding a recumbent that's great. It's all about riding.

>
> I meet plenty of upright riders that show unsolicited hostility simply
> because I am riding a recumbent bicycle. (And no, I have not tried to
> evangelize the benefits of recumbents to them, asked to join their
> rotating paceline, asked to draft, etc.)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>

Over the past 35 years I've found a lot of competitive cyclists who
display unsolicited hostility towards almost everyone else no matter
what they are riding or doing. I always called it "the racer's edge"
referring to an old deodorant ad!

This thread certainly got side tracked. I wanted to share my positive
experiences with a saddle that I like with others who have been writing
about Brooks Pro saddles.

Chas.
 
D

DougC

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
>
> No, I have not. I am conceive of the state of affairs
> quite otherwise. First, a bicycle saddle is not for
> sitting. Those who insist on this paradigm quit or buy
> a recumbent.


-You're a fool then, ignorant of the obvious. "Observed trials" bikes
often have no seats, as the seats aren't often used. When I watch people
riding any other kind of bicycle, I usually see them using the seat most
of the time. And after all--as I said (and you didn't answer)-if a seat
is not needed, then why is it present? And if a saddle isn't supposed to
be comfortable, then why do most upright saddle companies claim benefits
of comfort in their advertising?

> Second, riders do not tolerate their
> saddle; they get stronger and consequently put less
> weight on the saddle.

So,,, in the end,,,, they tolerate it being painful.....

Third, almost every rider finds a
> saddle that suits them very well. I have.
>

-Yes--it is true that "all the people who ride a lot, are tolerant of
saddle pain". They would need to be. What about all the bicycles that
sit in people's garages unused, their tires going flat from dry-rot? Do
you think people aren't riding those bicycles because they're "too
comfortable"?

> You see many questions about saddles, and hear many
> reports of people uncomfortable on their bicycle in
> this technical newsgroup. Seriously, is this a good
> premise for inferring universal pain on upright
> bicycles?
>

-Yes it is. Why is it that with cars, with motorcycles, with boats, with
snowmobiles, generally with recumbent bicycles, and with the Rans
crank-forwards as well--with NO other vehicle is it considered necessary
to present a "wall of seats" for buyers to try, in the hopes that they
will find one comfortable enough that they'll actually pay for the
[vehicle] and take it home? Most other vehicles can arrive at one seat
that is more than comfortable enough for most of the vast population of
humanity. It is only upright bicycles that present this irrationality.
-And I didn't even ask about padded shorts yet....

> People new to the sport typically associate with people
> who have adapted, learn their methods, get stronger,
> get comfortable.
>

Yes but what you dscripe as "partly standing" is not "getting
comfortable",,,, it is only becoming tolerant of a poor design.

The mainstream "sport" of bicycle racing decided to ignore alternate
possibilities a very-long time ago, and continues to ignore them to this
day.
[end]
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
DougC wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > OBTW-my buttt doesn't hurt at all, never has, never had sleepy winkie,
> > a saddle sore or anything else like that. Have you ever had irritation
> > from your skin pushing thur on the straps of the lawn chair you have on
> > your 'bent??

> Recumbent seats do not have straps, sillybean.
> As to the condition of your rear end, that is not an appropriate subject
> for this newsgroup.
>
> > Let me knOw when 'bents are mainstream.

> How sad, the mark of a sheeple....
>
> > I have a idea also, go to Tiawan, make these cheaper, and try to sell
> > them to bike shops thruout the US, Europe and Asia, let me know how it
> > goes.
> >

> Well most are probably already made in the far east--but even then, as I
> said. If you bought a diamond frame, you bought the cheapest solution
> there is. ...And for someone with "Campagnolo" in their name, it would
> seem odd that you would be one to complain about prices.
>
> [end]


yer the one that mentioned the 'cheapest' solution. I have always said
that 'bents are the bicycle version of a wheelchair, a way for those
who for some physical(or mental) reason can't ride an upright. OBW-do a
google search and see what my 'name' really means in Italian.

Sorry, a parlee or merckx isn't the cheapest solution..but one of the
best. Love your 'bent, good for you, remain on the fringe.
 

Similar threads