Re: Pedal Forward Bike

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

Quoted message said:

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

I must respectfully disagree (and I've never ridden anything but
conventional bikes myself and probably never well). I think this part
of your statement is key:

(snipped) Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability (snip)

Some people aren't of either/or normal size or physical ability. For
riders of shorter stature it's often an issue of whether or not they
can get both feet on the ground when stopped. The feet forward bikes
make it easier for them to do this, making it more likely that they
will ride. I'm sure they will remain a niche market, but there will be
some who find they suit their needs.

Smokey

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> > bicycle design.
>
> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

Quoted message said:

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

(Tom Keats) said:

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis-
apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it
should be used.

Robert

R.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Chalo <[email hidden]> writes:
> Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >
>> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for
>> > people
>> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
>> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
>> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of
>> > conventional
>> > bicycle design.
>>
>> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
>> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
>> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
>> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
>> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
>> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

Quoted message said:

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel

....well...that was a problem, too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

Nooo. Rather weirder than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/

Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
bottle-gen light set.

The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
do that for two people.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.

I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
a comfort bike, I'd walk.

OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.

The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
(my read).

-paul

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
.... Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

--------

.....As to the RANS bikes, they are more comfortable, by the way that
they provide more area to sit on (even though the seat pans are flexible
plastic, the central area has a flat metal bracket under it--I own a
Fusion, so I know).

Every now and then when I am riding the Fusion or the LWB recumbent bike
in town, total strangers will ask if they can try /sitting/ on it. I had
"regular" bicycles for 15 years before I got into recumbents--and NOBODY
ever asked me if they could sit on ANY of those bikes.
~

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
*anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
bikes.
If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists"

City Councils who kow-tow to motorheaded
Business Improvement Associations, and
cringingly & handwringingly heed their whinings
about how anything that might impede motorized
traffic will adversely affect The Economy.

Quoted message said:

and what accommodations are they refusing to
make?

Anything which allows non-driving, local traffic to
freely move about, to the supposed detriment of
drivers who'd rather, on their suburban commutes,
just shoot through your city without stopping anyway.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

DougC said:

... we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during
muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a
bicycle saddle.

In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
that.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help.

Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
"recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html

- Frank Krygowski

Chalo Colina said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

I gave up distance riding on uprights due to discomfort. For the few
years when I had better health and many fewer demands on my time, I rode
my recumbents thousands of miles per year.

Chalo's 99.9 percentile mass does not necessarily mean that he will have
more discomfort problems. As a counter example, my feet hurt from
standing still much sooner than most other peoples, even when I was in
high school and was 1.78 meters (5'10"😉 tall with a mass of 55 kilograms
(120 pounds).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

Nooo. Rather weirder than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/

Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
bottle-gen light set.

The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
do that for two people.

Funky but cool.

Any issues with excessive frame flexure?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Cassel said:

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.

I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
a comfort bike, I'd walk.

OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.

The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
(my read).

Damn it - now I am considering going to my local RANS dealer to try one
of these crank-forward bikes for casual riding. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Officer Bob Hunt said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
*anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
bikes.
If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
besides cycling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

aka Frank Krygowski said:

DougC said:

... we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during
muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a
bicycle saddle.

In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
that.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help.

Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
"recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html

"Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off
the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite
some time.

The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be
excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few
hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle.

Not at all comparable, and those without experience should not try to
equate the two.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
besides cycling.

On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders,
ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes,
steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc.

You post it, somebody will hate it.

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Officer Bob Hunt said:

On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Quoted message said:

Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
*anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
bikes.
If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
besides cycling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't usually frequent bike shops aimed solely at racing types.
Maybe that attitude is more common in those shops but then, why would
anyone expect otherwise? They are simply geared toward their target
market just as any successful business must. Do you label your LBS
"elitist" because they don't seem to care about how often you change
the oil in your car or your local garage for not stocking 700x23
tires? Face it- neither is considering you "unworthy". Your complaint
could be fairly summarized as wanting all those round holes adapt to
your square peg. Sorry, neither business nor life in general works
like that.

Regards,
Bob Hunt