Now that we all agree: recumbents are the fastest bikes...

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Very few coastal cities have single climbs with hundreds of feet (or more) elevation gain that
> > the upright bicycle proponents like to talk about so much.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> I don't think you know what you're talking about. I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a
> coastal city on the West Coast of the US that is more than a few miles from a climb such as this.

Hundreds of feet? Hee hee! My old commute in the suburbs of Vancouver used to take me from the shore
of Burrard Inlet to the shore of the Fraser River (very picturesque, eh? Actually, it was a
commercial/industrial commuter chute of the first order). In between was 400' of gain, and this
wasn't a very big climb. If I was still going to SFU, I would have about a 10 km commute with 1000'
of altitude change and 1400' of gain, more or less.

And none of that counts the North Shore mountains. Finding hills in Vancouver, Seattle, and San
Francisco is not hard. Even LA is all hills once you leave the basin.

Maybe San Diego is flat,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Edward Dolan]

Jon Meinecke <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 5 May 2003 16:08:52 -0700, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

> > [recumbents] the simple fact is that they haven't caught on. That is enough for me to know.
>
> That's fine, but what insight does knowing that *simple fact* provide?

It means that I am not going to spend one waking minute trying to figure out why they haven't caught
on. The "simple fact" is just too overwhelming.

> I'm perfectly happy to ride my bike for fun, fitness, and basic transportation as much as I
> can,--- and wish it could be more. I *simply know* a recumbent bike permits me to do that in ways
> that an upright design *simply ergonomically* cannot for me.
>
> Jon Meinecke

Me too! But you and I are in a very small minority. I could give you a list of at least a half dozen
reasons why I ride a recumbent in preference to an upright and those reasons would be very similar
to yours I'm sure. But the vast majority of those who bicycle have decided otherwise. And they have
"decided". Everyone knows about the existence of recumbents. I have a pretty good idea why the vast
majority prefer uprights (those reasons have been stated many times on this newsgroup and on other
newsgroups). All I am saying is that the present situation is never going to change (I know, never
say never!), or at least not any time soon. And like you, this is fine with me. But I refuse to
proselytize for recumbents. What I like is not what others like. They have their reasons and I have
my reasons. If we are keeping score by the numbers, they have won and we have lost. But as both you
and I know, there is more to life than keeping score.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Skip]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... <snip>
> All I am saying is that the present situation is never going to change (I know, never say
> never!), or at least not any time soon. And like you, this is fine with me. But I refuse to
> proselytize for recumbents. What I like is not what others like. They have their reasons and I
> have my reasons. If we are keeping score by the numbers, they have won and we have lost. But as
> both you and I know, there is more to life than keeping score.

Life in the USA is full of choices. If someone chooses to not to ride some kind of a kind of bicycle
I like it's ok. I mean it's really OK. I've had a long love affair with bikes and bike riding. My
choice is to have as many different biking experiences as possible and not to have a closed mind to
something just it's different. I usually find *different* intriguing and want to try it.

A guy I ride with bought a Ti Fuji road bike in the early eighties (I think). He declared it was his
lifetime bike. So far it has been and he has remained faithful to it. He has not ridden anything
else to my knowledge. Oddly enough he looks a lot like Jon Isaacs. On the other hand I've been a bit
promiscuous owning at least fifteen bikes - classic road bikes, classic touring bikes, mtb's,
recumbents. a hybrid and a folder plus a bunch of motorcycles - road and off road. The two of us
certainly made different choices. He has more money to count and I've got more bikes to ride. The
motorcycles are gone for good cause.

skip

 

[Tom Sherman]

Robert Chung wrote:
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Very few coastal cities have single climbs with hundreds of feet (or more) elevation gain that
> > the upright bicycle proponents like to talk about so much.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> I don't think you know what you're talking about. I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a
> coastal city on the West Coast of the US that is more than a few miles from a climb such as this.

Of the approximately 6 billion people in the world, how many live in areas where there are elevation
changes of hundreds or thousands of feet over relatively short [1] distances? There are very good
reasons why large population concentrations do not make sense in these areas - primarily difficulty
of access, and slope stability considerations.

On another note, why do people in flat windy areas insist on riding tall bikes? I was on an
invitational ride this past weekend, and over the last 30 miles into a strong headwind I passed many
riders and was not passed by anyone. [2] Of course, I was the only person on a lowracer.

[1] I.e., those that can be covered by the use of human power over a time period of a few hours.
[2] For what it worth, I am poor health and my total aerobic exercise over the last six months
consists of less than 250 miles of riding. To paraphrase Mr. Armstrong, "Its the bike, not
the rider".

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Dave Patterson wrote:
>
> Not true friend there are restrictions in recumbent racing and model choice,Its not the helter
> skelter go for broke type thing you would think it is Dave

The International Human Powered Vehicle Association has one basic rule regarding equipment for speed
records to be legal - no stored energy source is allowed.

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

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Of the approximately 6 billion people in the world, how many live in areas where there are
> elevation changes of hundreds or thousands of feet over relatively short [1] distances?

Lots. Including practically the entire west coasts of The Americas. Then, there's places like
Kashmir, Nepal, other inland areas of India, China & Mongolia, the Alps, Appenines, the Rockies,
Appalachia ...

> There are very good reasons why large population concentrations do not make sense in these areas

Do I detect a note of "sour grapes"?

Actually, there are very good reasons why large population concentrations /do/ make sense in these
areas, which have been geologically active and are therefore mineralogically rich, which leads to
some very fruitful capital ventures, which leads to working communities, which leads to local
economies, which leads to cities. If the cities are coastal, that leads to ports and a thriving
import/export exchange. Then, there's the variagated climate effects due to a range of altitudes,
which leads to a variety of agricultural/primary industry possibilities. And tourism-draws, like
skiing and mountain biking.

Flattish, recumbent-tolerant areas (like Kansas), OTOH, have ... wheat. And tornadoes.

Want some wheat?

Or, there's swampy stuff like along part of the north coast of Aus, where big fuzzy spiders jump
out of trees onto your shoulders (that's just their friendly way of saying "hello".) Or the Sahara
desert. Lotsa ppl there. Yeah, right! Bangladesh is pretty flat (kinda reminds me of Spanish Banks
when the tide is out), and there's a bunch of ppl there, but I don't think there's many 'bent
riders there.

> On another note, why do people in flat windy areas insist on riding tall bikes? I was on an
> invitational ride this past weekend, and over the last 30 miles into a strong headwind I passed
> many riders and was not passed by anyone.

On yet another note, why do you make a point of passing ppl who are having a good enough time to
want to savour it and make the experience last a little longer, instead of getting it
over-&-done-with ASAP?

I guess you recumbent ppl just don't get it. But I still have hope for you. Then again, I'm more
optimistic than a lot of others.

Keep trying.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Wile E.Coyote]

Stored Energy eh ? How about riding in Tornado Alley...just aim the bent, clip in your Ruby Red
Slippers and try and avoid the flying cows and Trailer park homes.
------------------------------------
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Dave Patterson wrote:
> >
> > Not true friend there are restrictions in recumbent racing and model choice,Its not the helter
> > skelter go for broke type thing you would think it is Dave
>
> The International Human Powered Vehicle Association has one basic rule regarding equipment for
> speed records to be legal - no stored energy source is allowed.
>
> Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Robert Chung]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Very few coastal cities have single climbs with hundreds of feet (or more) elevation gain that
> > > the upright bicycle proponents like to talk about so much.
> > >
> > > Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
> >
> > I don't think you know what you're talking about. I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a
> > coastal city on the West Coast of the US that is
more
> > than a few miles from a climb such as this.
>
> Of the approximately 6 billion people in the world, how many live in areas where there are
> elevation changes of hundreds or thousands of feet over relatively short [1] distances? There are
> very good reasons why large population concentrations do not make sense in these areas - primarily
> difficulty of access, and slope stability considerations.

Oh dear. Your claim was that very few coastal cities have climbs with hundreds of feet of elevation
gain. Are you now going to claim that cities along the Pacific Rim somehow don't count? Are you
going to claim unusual definitions for the terms "very few" or "coastal?" And what does the world's
population have to do with your claim? Perhaps you believe all 6 billion of the world's population
live in coastal cities?

> On another note, [snip]

In some circles this would be called "trying to change the subject." People occasionally do that
when they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Edward Dolan]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> > On another note, why do people in flat windy areas insist on riding tall bikes? I was on an
> > invitational ride this past weekend, and over the last 30 miles into a strong headwind I passed
> > many riders and was not passed by anyone.
>
> On yet another note, why do you make a point of passing ppl who are having a good enough time to
> want to savour it and make the experience last a little longer, instead of getting it
> over-&-done-with ASAP? cheers, Tom

This has always puzzled me too. I think the explanation must lie in the obvious fact that there are
two classes of recumbent cyclists. There are the speed oriented types (a small minority) and the
strictly recreational types who could care less about speed as long as certain minimal standards are
met(the vast majority). But I think Tom was making the point by his comment that recumbents do a
have slight aerodynamic advantage over uprights and that this factor can come into play especially
on the flats when it is windy.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Flattish, recumbent-tolerant areas (like Kansas), OTOH, have ... wheat. And tornadoes.

Yes, and this is why you will find many more recumbent cyclists and recumbent shops in Kansas than,
say West Virginia. Recumbents love the flats and hate the hills. I have met other cyclists, always
on uprights, who love the hills (something about being challenged I believe). Interestingly enough,
I have also discovered other former recumbent cyclists who have gone back to uprights for just one
reason. They want to be faster on hills. I don't blame them. This world is full of hills and not
everyone can find flat areas in which to cycle.

> Or, there's swampy stuff like along part of the north coast of Aus, where big fuzzy spiders jump
> out of trees onto your shoulders (that's just their friendly way of saying "hello".) Or the Sahara
> desert. Lotsa ppl there. Yeah, right! Bangladesh is pretty flat (kinda reminds me of Spanish Banks
> when the tide is out), and there's a bunch of ppl there, but I don't think there's many 'bent
> riders there.

However, Mr. Sherman is not entirely wrong about the advantages of flat areas for human habitation -
everything else being equal. But that is the rub. Most of the time other things are not equal.
Hence, your example of the Sahara Desert.

The interior of the US is relatively flat with a moderate climate and rich soil and it could be
argued that it has contributed more to the greatness of America than any other single factor. The
flatness contributes greatly to the ease of transportaion and to living conditions generally.
Chicago would be impossible without the vast flat hinterlands which stretch to the west (I have read
that Chicago is the flatest of all the large cities in the world).

Not to pick on West Virginia, but can you imagine what the country would be like if that topography
prevaled everywhere. Mountainous areas are very problematic for man to live in. They are usually
very poor areas and if they are rich it is because they are being financed by flatlanders nearby or
other factors not having anything to do with the mountains themselves (the main exception being
mineral exploitation).

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Jon Meinecke]

On 6 May 2003 17:20:45 -0700, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>It means that I am not going to spend one waking minute trying to figure out why they haven't
>caught on. The "simple fact" is just too overwhelming.

Our conversation began with responses to Cotrell's and others' posts seeming to express the
assertion (explicit or implicit) that "recumbents can't be that great or more people would be
buying them."

It takes more time to write this sentence than to figure there are several alternate explanations
for the current state of recumbent bike sales...

> But the vast majority of those who bicycle have decided otherwise. And they have "decided".

Well, there are 'sins' of omission and 'sins' of commission. As we've been discussing, the measure
of "have decided" is debatable and an interesting question to many people.

>Everyone knows about the existence of recumbents.

*All* absolute statements are false. %^) [I sense I'm being more obviously baited...]

In my interactions with even a relatively small sampling of "everyone", universal knowledge of
recumbents is demonstrably, simply not the case...

My lowly BikeE resulted in the purchase of at least four other recumbents,-- and only one of those
four was a current recumbent owner (me). My subsequent Tour Easy purchase lead at least in part to
the one of the others also upgrading...

Jon

 

[Jon Meinecke]

On Tue, 06 May 2003 21:50:24 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>The International Human Powered Vehicle Association has one basic rule regarding equipment for
>speed records to be legal - no stored energy source is allowed.

Outside the human, one presumes. Otherwise, the conversion of blood sugars and fats to facilitate
muscle contraction would probably violate the restriction on stored energy sources.

I guess A(anorexic)HPV's could approach a no stored energy source allowed requirement. Not
recommended.

For endurance HPV events, do they allow Gatorade? It's a stored energy source, too. %^)

Jon Meinecke

 

[Gene Nygaard]

On 6 May 2003 11:16:48 -0700, [email protected] (azqaz) wrote:

>[email protected] (Gene Nygaard) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>... <snip>
>
>>
>> Those pounds are every bit as much units of mass as the kilograms are. In fact, we don't even
>> have independent standards for pounds any more--they are by definition an exact fraction of a
>> kilogram, .45359237 kg to be precise.
>>
><snip>
>
>>
>> American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979.
>>
>> 3.4.1.2 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the term weight as a quantity to mean
>> either force or mass. In commercial and everyday use, the term weight nearly always
>> means mass; thus, when one speaks of a person's weight, the quantity referred to is
>> mass. . . .
>>
>> Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
>
>I looked at the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)web site, and the U.S., at
>some time in the past, has defined apothecary, avoirdupois, and troy as mass, not weight.

Do you always have so much trouble understanding what you read? Go back and read that ASTM quote,
just above what you wrote, again, slowly, over and over again until you figure it out.

As units of mass, sure. That does not imply "not weight."

In fact, unlike the avoirdupois pound, the troy pound (the apothecaries pound is only a special
application of the troy pound, with different subdivisions between the grain and the ounce) has
never spawned a unit of force of the same name. The troy and apothecaries units of weight are always
units of mass, never units of force.

>Not exactly sure when, but they are specifically defined as mass.

The precise definition has changed at various times throughout history, most recently in the
international agreement of 1959 making them 0.45359237 kg exactly. The fact that they are units of
mass has never changed. The avoirdupois pounds have been units of mass since they were introduced by
the London merchants 700 years ago, in 1303.

You want NIST? Here's how they put it in their official "Guide for the Use of the International
System of Units," NIST Special Publication 811 (1995), at
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a
synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram
(kg) and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg the briefcase weighs 6 kg Net wt. 227 g

Of course, this section also discusses different definitions of the ambiguous word "weight" where

Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is the newton (N).

>So, my question is, are there any official weight identifiers? If I'm

What do you mean, "weight identifiers"?

>tooling along on my R40 on the moon, I still mass 100Kg, but I want to know what I weigh.

When you are at that NIST site (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/), take a little time to learn
the rules. The symbols for units of measure are case sensitive; it is kg, not Kg. Furthermore, there
should be a space between the number and the symbol for the unit of measure.

You weigh 100 kg on the moon, as weight is normally used in medicine and in sports, the primary
reasons we weigh ourselves. Read that ASTM quote again, and note also the first example in the
NIST quote. The kilograms used throughout the world, including many hospitals in the U.S.A., for
human body weight (and that of other animals as well, as far as that goes) are indeed the proper
SI units for this purpose. If you want to know your "weight" in a meaning nonstandard for this
purpose, make your meaning clear. Then, you can multiply your weight in kilograms by the local
acceleration of gravity in meters per second squared to get your weight in newtons, using F=ma
where your normal "weight" in medicine is the "m" on the left, and the weight in a different
jargon meaning of the word is the "F" on the left. In the same way, you can take your mass in
pounds, multiply it by the local acceleration of gravity, and you will get the force you exert due
to gravity in units of poundals.

Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

 

[Peter Gardner]

(I have read that Chicago
> is the flatest of all the large cities in the world).

I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that Houston is flatter, but I may be wrong. Houston is pretty
darn flat, though.

Peter

 

[Steven M. Schar]

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:v0Xra.677817$3D1.378891@sccrnsc01...

> However, recumbents are not well understood in the US. They are not being evangelized within the
> ranks of bike shop employees. This is where
recumbent
> evangelists need to concentrate their efforts if their bikes of choice are ever to be accepted in
> the States. Again, Apple Macintosh has done this. By installing Apple Stores within CompUSA
> superstores, they have put their unique wares before a broad audience, thus creating an
> opportunity to
build
> awareness and consumer desire for their products.

It's had little effect for Apple. Their market share continues to decline, and they continue to lose
money. They've created a hard core of loyal, fanatical users, but they've been unable to convince
'normal' people to buy their products. They have a couple of niches where price is of no concern,
i.e. pro video editing.

Besides lack of a market for recumbents, I suspect that U.S. manufacturers are wary due to product
liability issues. Riding a recumbent means learning to ride a bike all over again, but most people
who haven't tried one may think they can just hop on and ride.

 

[Mike Nelson]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .com...
> >
> >> The original owner of my lowracer toured in the Alps with it. I guess he
> > was ignorant of the fact that lowracers climb poorly and are too impractical for touring.
>
> OK Tom, so the guy grunted that contraption over a couple of Cols, the fact is he look really
> goofy doing it.
>
> Take a look at a photo of a top cyclist like Paolo Bettini, Bart Voskamp, or Me and you will see
> just how it should be done with style.

Though I honestly don't begrudge you it at all, I'm kind of curious -- how long will it amuse you,
whoever you are, to do the arrogant roadie impersonation? I can see it being fun for perhaps three
or four posts, but really, how do you keep it up? What motivates you in the long run?

Just curious.

 

[Edward Dolan]

[email protected] (Mike Nelson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .com...
> > >
> > >> The original owner of my lowracer toured in the Alps with it. I guess he
> > > was ignorant of the fact that lowracers climb poorly and are too impractical for touring.
> >
> > OK Tom, so the guy grunted that contraption over a couple of Cols, the fact is he look really
> > goofy doing it.
> >
> > Take a look at a photo of a top cyclist like Paolo Bettini, Bart Voskamp, or Me and you will see
> > just how it should be done with style.
>
> Though I honestly don't begrudge you it at all, I'm kind of curious -- how long will it amuse you,
> whoever you are, to do the arrogant roadie impersonation? I can see it being fun for perhaps three
> or four posts, but really, how do you keep it up? What motivates you in the long run?
>
> Just curious.

Mike, I can tell you what motivates someone like Fab. It is to get a rise out of guys like you and
me. Every newsgroup has these characters. They are like gadflies. All I ask of them is that they be
intelligent, and Fab, whatever else you might think of him, is at least intelligent. Besides, there
is always an element of truth to his posts, but only an element. The best thing to do is just to sit
back and enjoy.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Peter Gardner <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> (I have read that Chicago
> > is the flattest of all the large cities in the world).
>
> I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that Houston is flatter, but I may be wrong. Houston is
> pretty darn flat, though.
>
> Peter

Chicago is located on the former lake bed of Glacial Lake Michigan. There are no flatter lands
anywhere on earth than former lake beds. Another even better example is the former lake bed of
Glacial Lake Agassiz, an enormous area extending from near Fargo to Winnipeg. I think it is as flat
as it is possible to get on this planet. It is recumbent heaven because the only rises are the
bridges over the interstate highway.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Jon Meinecke <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> On 6 May 2003 17:20:45 -0700, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

> >Everyone knows about the existence of recumbents.
>
> *All* absolute statements are false. %^) [I sense I'm being more obviously baited...]
>
> In my interactions with even a relatively small sampling of "everyone", universal knowledge of
> recumbents is demonstrably, simply not the case...

I do disagree with you here. The "everyone" I am refering to are adult bicycle enthusiasts like you
and me. They can be found doing organized week long group bike tours most summers. These are the
folks who buy expensive bikes, whether uprights or recumbents, and who ride them. They have seen
every kind of bicycle that it is possible to see. It can be argued how much they "know" about
recumbents based on just seeing them, but I would argue that they know enough.

Observe any organized week long group bike tour. Ragbrai probably has the most recumbents as a
percentage of the total number of riders, and what does that amount to? Maybe 2% at best. That
means 98% have seen recumbents and therefore know about them and they are not persuaded. They do
not want them.

Let me give you a bit of my own first experience of knowing about recumbents. I first saw them in a
Bike Nashbar catalog many, many years ago. It was an Infinity and I was intrigued. I could see right
away that it might be more comfortable than my upright (but probably slower), but that was not a
sufficient reason for me to get one. At that point I knew something about recumbents and had decided
I didn't want one. It was only many years later when the pain of riding my uprights made it
impossible for me to continue that I decided I wanted a recumbent.

You are telling me that people don't know what they want or that they don't know any better. I am
telling you that people do know what they want and they do know better.

> My lowly BikeE resulted in the purchase of at least four other recumbents,-- and only one of those
> four was a current recumbent owner (me). My subsequent Tour Easy purchase lead at least in part to
> the one of the others also upgrading...

I have also been instrumental in getting several other cyclists to make the switch from uprights to
recumbents. But the fact is, they all did know something about recumbents and were thinking about it
long before they met me. Most likely they would have gotten their recumbents even if they had never
met me. I do not take any credit for their decisions.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Azqaz]

[email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Peter Gardner <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > (I have read that Chicago
> > > is the flattest of all the large cities in the world).
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that Houston is flatter, but I may be wrong. Houston is
> > pretty darn flat, though.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Chicago is located on the former lake bed of Glacial Lake Michigan. There are no flatter lands
> anywhere on earth than former lake beds. Another even better example is the former lake bed of
> Glacial Lake Agassiz, an enormous area extending from near Fargo to Winnipeg. I think it is as
> flat as it is possible to get on this planet. It is recumbent heaven because the only rises are
> the bridges over the interstate highway.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

I don't know about being the flattest, but the Mississippi river flood plain village I live in is
pretty darn flat. The population is only 3000 times smaller than Chicago, so I can't call it a large
city though.

I was in Chicago this past weekend though, and took my kids to the kite festival. I must admit that
it is awfully flat around there. This trip I only saw 1 'bent. A Ryan I believe, but I wasn't close
enough to tell for sure. Last time I was in Chicago I was darn near run down by a pair of cyclists
on some red 26/20 SWB numbers.