Next best thing to a Brooks Pro

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Read above, Jobst said it better than me...


Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> 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.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

* * Chas wrote:
> "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.

But, but, but, it's the pisspoor design of the upright and no bicycle
saddle design is going to fix that!!!

 

[Victor Kan]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> 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.

This is kind of true for me.

I have physical limitations that prevent me from riding in a max. aero
position (for me) on my DF bike for extended periods. On my recumbent,
I'm in a max. aero position (for me) constantly, so I end up riding
faster with less effort over the same routes than I can on my DF bike.
If I did nothing but ride up steep hills, this wouldn't matter, but then
I don't just ride up steep hills.

At the power output end of things, I can sprint faster and reach a
higher maximum speed on my DF, but with the lower power requirement of
the constant aero position, I can sustain higher speeds over longer
distances/times on the recumbent.

ob.on-topic: I haven't tried a Brooks Pro but would probably get it or
a B17 Narrow if I hadn't found a nice fit on a San Marco Rolls, as well
as the Vetta Race Lite (about as wide as the Rolls in back, narrower up
front, more rounded and firmer at the back than the flatter Rolls).

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <y6G%[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

You misunderstood. A saddle isn't for sitting. It's for riding.
sitting is passive, riding is active. A bicycle saddle is designed to
provide enough support while not getting in your way while riding.

> > 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.....

No. As I and others have said already, we do not experience pain from
riding our bikes. Thus we have no need to resort to the kludges that
are recumbents, most of which look like they were designed by Rube
Goldberg.

> > 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"?

In most cases, the bikes are going unused because they were bought with
good intentions but other life commitments and- in many cases- laziness
keep them off their bikes. I know of a number of recumbents also
sitting in garages being unused for those same reasons.

Your claim that "all the people who ride a lot are tolerant of saddle
pain" is just ********. I ride a lot (6,000 to 7,000 miles most years)
and have no issues with saddle pain (with one exception noted below). I
use either Brooks Team Pros or Lepper Voyageur saddles and find them
very comfortable.

The exception is on long brevets (400, 600, 1000 and 1200 km). I get
some saddle soreness then. However, listening to the gripes of
recumbent riders during those events, I know that I am not alone.

> > 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.

No, it's not. Perhaps you can't figure out why on your own and that's
why you've come to the erroneous conclusion that all standard bicycles
are painful to ride. If you need an explanation of why you're wrong,
let us know. But you ought to be able to figure it out for yourself.

> > 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]

What does bicycle racing have to do with it? Bicycle racing is about
0.0002% of the cycling population. Recumbent zealots love to play the
bike racing card, even though it has basically nothing to do with
anything.

It's more telling that recumbents have not taken over in the general
public. The main reason is simple- recumbents are a necessary solution
for only a small fraction of people who can't tolerate a normal bike.
The other reason is also simple- you can't buy a $300 recumbent.

One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they are
overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women on
recumbents and virtually no young, fit people. Locally we have some
very strong recumbent evangelists such as Calhoun Cycles (a shop of
almost all recumbents) and Terry Osell who has built custom recumbents
for decades. Recumbents are pretty visible here- I see someone riding
one most days in the summer. I see none in the winter on the ice and
snow, whereas I see hundreds of cyclists all winter long.

Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned by the
U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They are illegal
in races sanctioned by the international cycling body, the UCI, and in
races that conform to UCI rules. I've never seen a recumbent in a race
locally, mainly because the disadvantage when climbing would render them
noncompetitive.

The other interesting thing here is your divisive attitude. I wonder
what end that serves? Are you making yourself feel superior and
justified in your fringe element lifestyle choice to ride a recumbent?
You are certainly not approaching the matter in a way that is going to
produce converts.

I think it's great that people ride recumbents. If it gets them out on
their bikes and they wouldn't ride otherwise, more power to them. I
know two dedicated cyclists that have switched to recumbents due to
cervical arthritis, it's kept them on the road. I think that's great
too. It's good to have options. If a recumbent is a superior choice
for you, then ride and and tailwinds to ya.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

There evidence that this sort of thing is actually due to prenatal
testosterone levels. There is some very interesting research into this.
People with high prenatal testosterone tend to develop very efficient
cardiopulmonary systems and tend to be athletic. They also tend to have
very strong competitive natures. As a result you'll find a lot of those
folks in professional and amateur sports. More of our personalities are
governed biologically than we realize.

 

[* * Chas]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There evidence that this sort of thing is actually due to prenatal
> testosterone levels. There is some very interesting research into
this.
> People with high prenatal testosterone tend to develop very efficient
> cardiopulmonary systems and tend to be athletic. They also tend to
have
> very strong competitive natures. As a result you'll find a lot of
those
> folks in professional and amateur sports. More of our personalities
are
> governed biologically than we realize.

Well put.

The bottom line is: for those folks who like or need the support of the
wide flat rear of Brooks Pros and B17s, WTB has a number of models with
their "whale tail" design.

Are they ever going to break in or last as long as a good leather
saddle? No, but they are about 1/2 the price of a Brooks Pro and some
folk's budgets are hard pressed to chunk out $100+ USD for a bike seat.

As I said above, I have 4 Brooks Pros and I'll keep riding them.

Chas.

 

[[email protected]]

Jeff Wills writes:

>> >> 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.

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

Watch the >'s and you'll notice the attribution is correct, and not
Tom's. Tom's comments have > before them, not >>.

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

That's to bad, I guess.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Fred]

On 25 Oct 2006 05:42:35 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

....
>
>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.

On an upright tandem I block the view for my wife on the back. With a
recumbent tandem she has a good view.

As for comfort the recumbent is slightly more comfy than a good
upright saddle, at least for me. It is much better for the wife.
Leave this one to the individual rider.

>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.

It's fun out there...

 

[Michael Press]

In article <y6G%[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > No, I have not. I 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.
>
> "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?

An upright bicycle has a saddle, not a seat. It is not
meant for sitting.

Do you mean to confound me with observed advertising
practice?

> > 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.....

Nobody tolerates a painful bicycle.

> 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.

Argumentum Monty Python. No, it is not. People here are
comfortable on their upright bicycle. The apparent
large volume of questions about fitting a saddle is
because this is where people come to ask their
questions.

> 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

Then you are saying that a bicycle is different from an
automobile?

> 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?

They are not seats.

> 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....

That's a mercy, since we are discussing saddles.

> > 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.

You have not done it, so you are not qualified to
assert this.

--
Michael Press

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they are
> overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women on
> recumbents...

I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and invitational
rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are only slightly
more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.

> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned by the
> U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They are illegal
> in races sanctioned by the international cycling body, the UCI, and in
> races that conform to UCI rules....

My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI rules
in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights, Moultons,
etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the current rules by
the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents longer than 2 meters
have always been forbidden.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> ...OBW-do a google search and see what my 'name' really means in Italian....

What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?

I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman writes:

>> ... One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they
>> are overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women
>> on recumbents...

> I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and
> invitational rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are
> only slightly more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.

You're riding in the wrong area apparently. Many women ride in the
Santa Cruz to San Mateo region where there are many fine mountain
roads.

>> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned
>> by the U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They
>> are illegal in races sanctioned by the international cycling body,
>> the UCI, and in races that conform to UCI rules....

> My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI
> rules in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights,
> Moultons, etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the
> current rules by the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents
> longer than 2 meters have always been forbidden.

It's about time, but then that might be called un-American. There is
good reason to specify the type of two wheeled vehicle used in
competition, no different than defining the size of golf, tennis and
baseball balls as well as many other dimensions of a sport. You can
ride anything you want elsewhere as many people do, although enough
folks want to ride what the "racers" use.

What would be gained in leaving the choice of two wheeled vehicle up
to competitors? Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold
be made more expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage.
Do you have any preference for whether streamlines recumbents should
be allowed in time trials?

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman writes:

> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:

>> ...OBW-do a Google search and see what my 'name' really means in
>> Italian....

> What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?

> I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.

You didn't Google well enough. A Campagnolo is a Countryman.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> 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.

Putting words in my mouth? Where did I ever state that bicyclists are
fools for riding conventional uprights? Citation please!

Where have I ever seriously stated that all upright cyclists should
convert to recumbents? Citation please!

> > 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.

More putting words into my mouth. Where have I ever stated or implied
that recumbents are not a minority (in fact the best estimates are a
little less than 1% of LBS bicycles sales in the US)? Citation please!

>From the rec.bicycles.tech charter: "rec.bicycles.tech: Techniques of
engineering, construction, maintenance and repair of bicycles and
ancillary equipment. Not for products or services offered or wanted --
see rec.bicycles.marketplace."

Note that it says "bicycles", not "upright bicycles" or "upright
bicycles only".

So why do some get to upset at the mere mention of a recumbent bicycle
when the post fits the rec.bicycles.tech charter guidelines?

> >> 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.

Mostly by economic necessity. Look how the popularity of bicycles for
transportation has dropped in ever society where personal motor
vehicles have become affordable to the average person.

Anyhow, where is the study that shows that most of those millions ride
in comfort? How long are their rides on average?

> >> 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'?

What was actually written is below:
-----

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

What is a 'lunatic fronge' (sic)? [Tom Sherman]
-----

See
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2ea6b7e278def5e7?dmode=source>.

If you are going to change things in quoted material, put the changes
in brackets, which is the accepted practice. DO NOT MAKE IT APPEAR THAT
PEOPLE WROTE SOMETHING THEY DID NOT!

> > 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.

Where is it stated that rec.bicycles.tech is SOLELY the province of
UPRIGHT BICYCLES? CITATION PLEASE!

> >>> 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.

And with attitudes from the "experts" such as that exhibited by Peter
Chisholm and Jobst Brandt, no wonder.

I always thought that Sheldon Brown provided a fair treatment of
recumbents on his website:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html#recumbent>. Is Sheldon's
glossary entry incorrect?

> > 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.

Oh, so only subjects of interest to Jobst Brandt are now allowed on
rec.bicycles.tech? Did the group become moderated with Mr. Brandt as
moderator?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >> ... One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that they
> >> are overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few women
> >> on recumbents...
>
> > I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and
> > invitational rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are
> > only slightly more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.
>
> You're riding in the wrong area apparently. Many women ride in the
> Santa Cruz to San Mateo region where there are many fine mountain
> roads.

In the Chicagoland area (population ca. 10 million), this is certainly
not the case.

When I had the time to be in a recreational cycling club, the regular
ridership was approximately 90% male, and over half the regular women
were there with the male "significant other".

> >> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned
> >> by the U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book. They
> >> are illegal in races sanctioned by the international cycling body,
> >> the UCI, and in races that conform to UCI rules....
>
> > My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI
> > rules in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights,
> > Moultons, etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the
> > current rules by the discretion of the race steward, and recumbents
> > longer than 2 meters have always been forbidden.
>
> It's about time, but then that might be called un-American. There is
> good reason to specify the type of two wheeled vehicle used in
> competition, no different than defining the size of golf, tennis and
> baseball balls as well as many other dimensions of a sport. You can
> ride anything you want elsewhere as many people do, although enough
> folks want to ride what the "racers" use.
>
> What would be gained in leaving the choice of two wheeled vehicle up
> to competitors?

It would settle the discussion on which types of bicycles are faster on
different terrain (a question that can not currently be answered).

> Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold
> be made more expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage.
> Do you have any preference for whether streamlines recumbents should
> be allowed in time trials?

There is no right or wrong answer to whether the race should be a
competition of cyclists, or a competition of cyclists AND cycles.
However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion, it
is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series where
freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied by the
rider.

At a professional level, I imagine the cost of the bicycles is only a
tiny fraction compared to what is spent on salaries, air travel, meals,
hotels, support automobiles, etc. At the amateur level, it would be an
impediment to many of the riders in their late teens to mid 20's, who
are often earning little more than minimum wage in a LBS, if different
bicycles were needed for different stages.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> >> ...OBW-do a Google search and see what my 'name' really means in
> >> Italian....
>
> > What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?
>
> > I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.
>
> You didn't Google well enough. A Campagnolo is a Countryman.

Yes, but Peter Chisholm claims to speak "Campagnolo", implying it is a
language. (And yes, I am aware that it is an advertising slogan, as
demonstrated by Andrew Muzi of Yellow Jersey:
<http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/SPOKEN.JPG>.)

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

* * Chas wrote:
>
> 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.

Fighting "thread drift" on Usenet is a losing battle.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "* * Chas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There evidence that this sort of thing is actually due to prenatal
> testosterone levels. There is some very interesting research into this.
> People with high prenatal testosterone tend to develop very efficient
> cardiopulmonary systems and tend to be athletic. They also tend to have
> very strong competitive natures. As a result you'll find a lot of those
> folks in professional and amateur sports. More of our personalities are
> governed biologically than we realize.

Not an excuse at all for the behavior. It is simply a matter of
self-discipline to refrain from behavior that is morally incorrect,
unless the person is mentally incompetent to a point where he/she is
not responsible for his/her actions.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman writes:

>>>> ... One thing I notice about recumbent riders locally is that
>>>> they are overwhelmingly obese middle aged males. I see very few
>>>> women on recumbents...

>>> I see very few women on bicycles period. On the club and
>>> invitational rides I have attended in the Upper Midwest, women are
>>> only slightly more represented than they are on rec.bicycles.tech.

>> You're riding in the wrong area apparently. Many women ride in the
>> Santa Cruz to San Mateo region where there are many fine mountain
>> roads.

> In the Chicagoland area (population ca. 10 million), this is
> certainly not the case.

> When I had the time to be in a recreational cycling club, the
> regular ridership was approximately 90% male, and over half the
> regular women were there with the male "significant other".

>>>> Oh and BTW- recumbents per se are not illegal in races sanctioned
>>>> by the U.S. cycling body, USA Cycling. Check the rule book.
>>>> They are illegal in races sanctioned by the international cycling
>>>> body, the UCI, and in races that conform to UCI rules....

>>> My understanding is that USA Cycling was going to adopt the UCI
>>> rules in the near future, banning recumbents, Y-frame uprights,
>>> Moultons, etc. In addition, recumbents may be banned under the
>>> current rules by the discretion of the race steward, and
>>> recumbents longer than 2 meters have always been forbidden.

>> It's about time, but then that might be called un-American. There
>> is good reason to specify the type of two wheeled vehicle used in
>> competition, no different than defining the size of golf, tennis
>> and baseball balls as well as many other dimensions of a sport.
>> You can ride anything you want elsewhere as many people do,
>> although enough folks want to ride what the "racers" use.

>> What would be gained in leaving the choice of two wheeled vehicle
>> up to competitors?

> It would settle the discussion on which types of bicycles are faster
> on different terrain (a question that can not currently be
> answered).

I think there is no doubt that faired recumbents are faster in flat
straight courses. I think the HPVA has shown that for short course
maximum speeds as well as duration. That mountain climbing and
twisting descents are better done on conventional road racing bicycle
and that rough trail descents are best done with fat tired suspension
bicycles. I think the regulations are tuned to that.

>> Maybe in a multi-stage event, equipping oneself cold be made more
>> expensive, leaving the less affluent at a disadvantage. Do you
>> have any preference for whether streamlined recumbents should be
>> allowed in time trials?

> There is no right or wrong answer to whether the race should be a
> competition of cyclists, or a competition of cyclists AND cycles.

I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that class:
road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon see what
design it the one best suited to the type of race.

> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series
> where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied
> by the rider.

How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are those
that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes, shifting, BB's,
hubs, rims and the like. We already know what design is optimum for
top speeds and for human powered flight. We don't need no steenkin
UCI for that.

> At a professional level, I imagine the cost of the bicycles is only
> a tiny fraction compared to what is spent on salaries, air travel,
> meals, hotels, support automobiles, etc. At the amateur level, it
> would be an impediment to many of the riders in their late teens to
> mid 20's, who are often earning little more than minimum wage in a
> LBS, if different bicycles were needed for different stages.

So why do that?

Jobst Brandt

 

[JeffWills]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jeff Wills writes:
<snip>
>
> > FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
> > all, for different reasons.
>
> That's to bad, I guess.
>
> Jobst Brandt

What's "too" bad? That I like bicycles? Or that I like different
bicycles for different reasons?

Jeff