Recumbant cycle

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:35:16 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > It's about three feet, I think.
> >> But does he practise in the yard?
> >I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.
>
> And he still looks as if he's perching on a pole. And he can't keep it up furlong, either.

Yehbut none of yours are 36" (are they? I work in one of the few industries where chains are in
common parlance (and indeed are the primary unit-of-choice for certain things), but while I can
recognise others as units, I'd need to check how long they are).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:35:16 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > It's about three feet, I think.
> >> But does he practise in the yard?
> >I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.
>
> And he still looks as if he's perching on a pole. And he can't keep it up furlong, either.

I've fathomed your game: You're trying to half-inch all the possible puns, aren't you? I bet you
don't have a s mile like his, and when did you last ride a cycle that light? Years ago, I expect,
when Pa secured your stabilisers on with a cable.

Cue bitter animadversions from Guy.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

to err is human, to lisp divine ;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

 

[John Openshaw]

In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:35:16 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > It's about three feet, I think.
>> >> But does he practise in the yard?
>> >I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.
>>
>> And he still looks as if he's perching on a pole. And he can't keep it up furlong, either.
>
>Yehbut none of yours are 36" ... <snipped>

Yes, but I don't use it as a rule.

--
John Openshaw

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:52:21 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yehbut none of yours are 36" (are they? I work in one of the few industries where chains are in
>common parlance (and indeed are the primary unit-of-choice for certain things), but while I can
>recognise others as units, I'd need to check how long they are).

It is y ambition to become literate in the FFF[1] system of units. But not until I've got good at
unicycling.

[1] Furlong / Firkin / Fortnight. But you knew that.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:52:21 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:35:16 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > It's about three feet, I think.
>> >> But does he practise in the yard?
>> >I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.
>>
>> And he still looks as if he's perching on a pole. And he can't keep it up furlong, either.
>
>Yehbut none of yours are 36" (are they? I work in one of the few industries where chains are in
>common parlance (and indeed are the primary unit-of-choice for certain things), but while I can
>recognise others as units, I'd need to check how long they are).
>
Cricket pitch maker?

Or, more likely, railways?

Tim

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:52:21 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Yehbut none of yours are 36" (are they? I work in one of the few industries where chains are in
> >common parlance (and indeed are the primary unit-of-choice for certain things), but while I can
> >recognise others as units, I'd need to check how long they are).
> >
> Cricket pitch maker?
>
> Or, more likely, railways?

Railway civil/structural engineering - "bridge 408 is at 13.7 miles" meaning the bridge in question
is at 13 miles and 7 chains along the line in question. Of course the really new documents don't use
chains - the computerised hazard directory would tell me the bridge is at 13.0154 miles (yep, 13
miles, 154 yards). Pretty much any paper document (of which there are stilll plenty) locates things
in terms of miles and chains from London termini (and a few other zero points for lines that don't
go remotely London-wards). (but I suspect Tim knows all that).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
davebee <[email protected]> writes:
|> I have just come accross these from browsing through the web. Although they might look a bit daft
|> they look awesome fun to ride and much quicker and easier than a normal bike. Has anybody else
|> got any experience of riding these umm contraptions?

If you have poor balance, don't bother with a short wheelbase one.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If you have poor balance, don't bother with a short wheelbase one.

Define poor balance. I find the lowest and shortest wheelbases to be easier to ride than
some wedgies.

And if you have *really* poor balance the nice gentlemen at ICE have just the thing for you

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> If you have poor balance, don't bother with a short wheelbase one.

Unless it's a tricycle! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> Have I mentioned that if anyone should meet my husband, the appropriate greeting would be,
> "Hello Vernon, how nice to meet you. I hear you are going to be buying your charming wife a
> Trice pretty soon."
>

I hate these chinese whispers games. OK lets see if I've got it right:

"Hello there man, how nice to meet you. I hear you are going to be bartering your charming wife for
a Trice pretty soon"

Pass it on

Tony

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
|> "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|>
|> > If you have poor balance, don't bother with a short wheelbase one.
|>
|> Define poor balance. I find the lowest and shortest wheelbases to be easier to ride than some
|> wedgies.

And doubtless easier than a unicycle, too. So what? Most people with poor balance will know that
perfectly well, and it will usually be due to poor middle-ear function, poor reactions, or
neurological problems.

Short wheelbase recumbents are much harder to balance than long wheelbase ones. The same applies to
uprights, but the difference in wheelbase is smaller and the stability differences are usually due
to other factors.

|> And if you have *really* poor balance the nice gentlemen at ICE have just the thing for you

ICE? Tricycles are a good solution, and recumbent ones are more stable than upright.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>>Have I mentioned that if anyone should meet my husband, the appropriate greeting would be,
>>"Hello Vernon, how nice to meet you. I hear you are going to be buying your charming wife a
>>Trice pretty soon."
>>
>
>
> I hate these chinese whispers games. OK lets see if I've got it right:
>
> "Hello there man, how nice to meet you. I hear you are going to be bartering your charming wife
> for a Trice pretty soon"
>
> Pass it on

Ah, hello you charming man. I heard you bettered your pretty wife in a trice.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[davebee]

Pass it on

Ah, hello you charming man. I heard you bettered your pretty wife in a trice.

Pete.
--

ah hello you charming man. I heard you battered your wife with a vice.

sorry couldn't resist. :-|)

Anyway in all seriousness what i really really want is one of those windcheetah trice recumbents. If you have one please don't start boasting because I will have to come and steal it..... If you want to let me have a go then thats different altogether! ;-)

 

[Dave Larrington]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> Short wheelbase recumbents are much harder to balance than long wheelbase ones. The same applies
> to uprights, but the difference in wheelbase is smaller and the stability differences are usually
> due to other factors.

Not in my experience...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Ah, hello you charming man. I heard you bettered your pretty wife in a trice.

Charming life, isnt't it? Two battered cod and one fried rice.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Short wheelbase recumbents are much harder to balance than long wheelbase ones. The same applies
> to uprights, but the difference in wheelbase is smaller and the stability differences are usually
> due to other factors.

I know. I have middle-ear problems (and tinnitus, unrelated) but I manage to stay on my short
wheelbase lowbike. It's not as hard as it looks.

Some people with perfectly good balance simply don't get on with 'bents at all, though.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> Short wheelbase recumbents are much harder to balance than long wheelbase ones. The same applies
>> to uprights, but the difference in wheelbase is smaller and the stability differences are usually
>> due to other factors.
>
>I know. I have middle-ear problems (and tinnitus, unrelated) but I manage to stay on my short
>wheelbase lowbike. It's not as hard as it looks.

I have very little middle ear function, and can't handle them at all. Long wheelbase, yes, with some
difficulty. Speaking to various experts, it is common for people with poor balance to be unable to
handle short wheelbase recumbents.

>Some people with perfectly good balance simply don't get on with 'bents at all, though.

Or even uprights.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I know. I have middle-ear problems (and tinnitus, unrelated) but I manage to stay on my short
> wheelbase lowbike. It's not as hard as it looks.
>
> Some people with perfectly good balance simply don't get on with 'bents at all, though.

As usual, try before you buy, or before ruling anything out. Note that the first few meters on some
designs will be wobblier than others for all sorts of reasons aside from just the wheelbase. That
was certainly true for me on an Orbit Crystal, my first 'bent, but I persevered (without falling off
at all during the process) and wasn't wobbling for very long with a little practice. An initial
wobble doesn't mean you'll be inherently unstable: think back to those first few meters on an
upright...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[\ Dave]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > I know. I have middle-ear problems (and tinnitus, unrelated) but I
manage
> > to stay on my short wheelbase lowbike. It's not as hard as it looks.
> >
> > Some people with perfectly good balance simply don't get on with 'bents
at
> > all, though.
>
> As usual, try before you buy, or before ruling anything out. Note that the first few meters on
> some designs will be wobblier than others for all sorts of reasons aside from just the wheelbase.
> That was certainly true for me on an Orbit Crystal, my first 'bent, but I persevered (without
> falling off at all during the process) and wasn't wobbling for very long with a little practice.
> An initial wobble doesn't mean you'll be inherently unstable: think back to those first few meters
> on an upright...
>
> Pete.

Yup, took me a good few rides to appear comfortable on my 'bent. Unfortunately, don't get out on it
often enough, so always appear a little unsteady for the first couple of miles ;-) Dave.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I have very little middle ear function, and can't handle them at all. Long wheelbase, yes, with
> some difficulty. Speaking to various experts, it is common for people with poor balance to be
> unable to handle short wheelbase recumbents.

Tru e- but then, some people with no balance probelms at all don't get on with 'bents. I don't see
much evidence that 'bents are noticeably more difficult to learn to ride than wedgies. It took me
slightly less time to learn to ride my 'bent confidently than it did my younger son to learn to
ride a bike.

For the balance impaired, recumbent trikes are where it's at

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk