Recumbent questions

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Wally, Dec 18, 2005.

  1. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Wally
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    >> The
    >> primary advantage which seems to be argued for under-seat steering is
    >> comfort; the primary disadvantage is aerodynamics (although I also
    >> think USS bikes just look better). There's no doubt that
    >> aerodynamically, over-seat steering is better.

    >
    > I'm not too fussed about aerodynamics. I'm building something on the
    > cheap from a pile of bits, with a view to just trying out the two-wheel
    > recumbent thing.


    Well, if you can catch him before he goes to France, Jon of this parish
    has two such things (and a wealth of building experience) in Edinburgh.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    ;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
    ;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
    ;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)
     


  2. On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:06 +0000 (UTC), "Steve W"
    <[email protected]> said in
    <[email protected]>:

    >If comfort is what you want I would definatly reccomend trying one of this
    >type. Other makes are Linear, Peer Gynt, Tour Easy.
    >Just look out for s/h. I would expect to pay 400-600 pounds.


    If you can find a decent 2/h Peer Gynt for that money, buy it. They
    are great bikes.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  3. garryb59

    garryb59 Guest

    On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:53:36 GMT, "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Simon Brooke wrote:
    >
    >> ... People who are used to them clearly don't find it hard.

    >
    >Fair comment.
    >
    >> The
    >> primary advantage which seems to be argued for under-seat steering is
    >> comfort; the primary disadvantage is aerodynamics (although I also
    >> think USS bikes just look better). There's no doubt that
    >> aerodynamically, over-seat steering is better.

    >
    >I'm not too fussed about aerodynamics. I'm building something on the cheap
    >from a pile of bits, with a view to just trying out the two-wheel recumbent
    >thing. (The longer-term plan is to make a trike, but I'm still at the CAD
    >geometry stage with that.) I can appreciate the comfort aspect, though - the
    >USS bars with the risers at the ends look like the type I'd like to try.


    My first thoughts exactly when I decided to build my first one, almost
    exactly ayear ago now. Although a poor picture, such a beast, in all
    it's rough and ready beauty, can be seem here. Old bikes frames and a
    few canisters of Mapp gas, but the drive train was all new stuff.
    Primitive seat - plywood and foam.

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vindaloo77/pednor.jpg

    Worked ok. Took it on a few trips of 60-70 miles, notched up a few
    hundred miles, and then decided I wanted to change a few things [lower
    seat, longer wheelbase etc], so took a hacksaw to it to make mk2,
    which is subsequently lying in bits and I'm onto mk3 which looks like:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vindaloo77/100_0864b.jpg

    and almost at the point where I'd consider painting it, but not quite.
    Seat technology has progressed from plywood to fibreglass here !
    This one handles really pretty well, although the frame has ugly
    angles and needs tidying up.

    I can almost guarantee that if you build one, you're very likely to
    build another, then maybe another... One advantage of doing this, is
    being able to try out, albeit basically, what the different styles are
    like. To begin with, I wanted nothing other than swb/USS then I
    wanted to try swb/OSS, and now I'm up for building a low LWB
    [something I was convinced I had no interest in at all], like the
    Rotator Pursuit. Thing is, as you go, you might want to change and try
    different things, but the point is to follow your intuition and go
    from there. Other people's preferences, although worth listening to,
    can just confuse you after a while.

    To be honest, I've got as much pleasure from the research/building
    process as I have from riding them.

    Have fun
    Garry

    >>> Do the high-mounted bars get in the way of the legs while pedalling,
    >>> or are there designs which get around that?

    >>
    >> No. Again, as a beginner, you think they will, but they don't.

    >
    >Yup, understood.
    >
    >
    >>> What's the typical amount of chain needed on a recumbent? Three
    >>> standard chains?

    >>
    >> Yup.

    >
    >Okay.
    >
    >
    >> Although the front wheel drive bikes use one or less. I don't
    >> know what chain life is like on a front wheel drive bent - I would
    >> imagine that the twisting while steering, although not very much,
    >> can't be good for them. Mr Larrington?

    >
    >Not doing a front-wheel drive version - big wheel at the back, small one at
    >the front, pedals on a boom.
     
  4. Wally

    Wally Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:

    > Well, if you can catch him before he goes to France, Jon of this
    > parish has two such things (and a wealth of building experience) in
    > Edinburgh.


    You're about a month out of date. ;-)


    --
    Wally
    www.artbywally.com
    www.wally.myby.co.uk
     
  5. David Martin

    David Martin Guest


    > >I'm not too fussed about aerodynamics. I'm building something on the cheap
    > >from a pile of bits,

    > My first thoughts exactly when I decided to build my first one,


    If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a very strong bias in location
    for those who are doing silly things with old bikes and hot metal.

    With the exception of the master, wobbly jon, it seems that most of the
    builders are located up North.. Simon is in Dumfries, Mr Senior is in
    Edinburgh, Wally appears to be somewhere near the Forth, and IIRC garry
    is in Scotland. I too am in Scotland.

    Is it something in the water?

    ...d
     
  6. garryb59

    garryb59 Guest

    ....and [if you're interested] this was mk2, which is a better picture.
    Much nicer frame, in terms of contruction, cleaner lines and all that,
    but I didn't like it as much as the first and indeed the subsequent.
    Weird. It didn't feel very stable/safe leaning into corners. I
    understood this [based on no scientific fact] to be because I was too
    far back over the rear wheel, and the seat too high, so I extended the
    wheel based and lowered the seat on the next one and it made a world
    of difference. Wish I understood what I'm doing!

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vindaloo77/100_0852.JPG

    Garry

    >On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:53:36 GMT, "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Simon Brooke wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... People who are used to them clearly don't find it hard.

    >>
    >>Fair comment.
    >>
    >>> The
    >>> primary advantage which seems to be argued for under-seat steering is
    >>> comfort; the primary disadvantage is aerodynamics (although I also
    >>> think USS bikes just look better). There's no doubt that
    >>> aerodynamically, over-seat steering is better.

    >>
    >>I'm not too fussed about aerodynamics. I'm building something on the cheap
    >>from a pile of bits, with a view to just trying out the two-wheel recumbent
    >>thing. (The longer-term plan is to make a trike, but I'm still at the CAD
    >>geometry stage with that.) I can appreciate the comfort aspect, though - the
    >>USS bars with the risers at the ends look like the type I'd like to try.

    >
    >My first thoughts exactly when I decided to build my first one, almost
    >exactly ayear ago now. Although a poor picture, such a beast, in all
    >it's rough and ready beauty, can be seem here. Old bikes frames and a
    >few canisters of Mapp gas, but the drive train was all new stuff.
    >Primitive seat - plywood and foam.
    >
    >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vindaloo77/pednor.jpg
    >
    >Worked ok. Took it on a few trips of 60-70 miles, notched up a few
    >hundred miles, and then decided I wanted to change a few things [lower
    >seat, longer wheelbase etc], so took a hacksaw to it to make mk2,
    >which is subsequently lying in bits and I'm onto mk3 which looks like:
    >
    >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vindaloo77/100_0864b.jpg
    >
    >and almost at the point where I'd consider painting it, but not quite.
    >Seat technology has progressed from plywood to fibreglass here !
    >This one handles really pretty well, although the frame has ugly
    >angles and needs tidying up.
    >
    >I can almost guarantee that if you build one, you're very likely to
    >build another, then maybe another... One advantage of doing this, is
    >being able to try out, albeit basically, what the different styles are
    >like. To begin with, I wanted nothing other than swb/USS then I
    >wanted to try swb/OSS, and now I'm up for building a low LWB
    >[something I was convinced I had no interest in at all], like the
    >Rotator Pursuit. Thing is, as you go, you might want to change and try
    >different things, but the point is to follow your intuition and go
    >from there. Other people's preferences, although worth listening to,
    >can just confuse you after a while.
    >
    >To be honest, I've got as much pleasure from the research/building
    >process as I have from riding them.
    >
    >Have fun
    >Garry
    >
    >>>> Do the high-mounted bars get in the way of the legs while pedalling,
    >>>> or are there designs which get around that?
    >>>
    >>> No. Again, as a beginner, you think they will, but they don't.

    >>
    >>Yup, understood.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> What's the typical amount of chain needed on a recumbent? Three
    >>>> standard chains?
    >>>
    >>> Yup.

    >>
    >>Okay.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Although the front wheel drive bikes use one or less. I don't
    >>> know what chain life is like on a front wheel drive bent - I would
    >>> imagine that the twisting while steering, although not very much,
    >>> can't be good for them. Mr Larrington?

    >>
    >>Not doing a front-wheel drive version - big wheel at the back, small one at
    >>the front, pedals on a boom.
     
  7. garryb59

    garryb59 Guest

    On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:35 -0800, "David Martin"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> >I'm not too fussed about aerodynamics. I'm building something on the cheap
    >> >from a pile of bits,

    >> My first thoughts exactly when I decided to build my first one,

    >
    >If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a very strong bias in location
    >for those who are doing silly things with old bikes and hot metal.
    >
    >With the exception of the master, wobbly jon, it seems that most of the
    >builders are located up North.. Simon is in Dumfries, Mr Senior is in
    >Edinburgh, Wally appears to be somewhere near the Forth, and IIRC garry
    >is in Scotland.


    You mean Chesham [nr Watford], Scotland :)

    > I too am in Scotland.


    >Is it something in the water?


    That be them hops, barley and dead rats and the like :)

    Personally, love a Bourbon every now and again.

    Garry
     
  8. Steve W

    Steve W Guest

    When I got my Ryan I had never heard of it!! I was trying to buy a Peer
    Gynt but came across the Ryan, and was really glad I did. It's a simpler
    and lighter machine and I really do not miss the suspension. Just seems that
    there are not too many in the UK.

    SW


    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:06 +0000 (UTC), "Steve W"
    > <[email protected]> said in
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >If comfort is what you want I would definatly reccomend trying one of

    this
    > >type. Other makes are Linear, Peer Gynt, Tour Easy.
    > >Just look out for s/h. I would expect to pay 400-600 pounds.

    >
    > If you can find a decent 2/h Peer Gynt for that money, buy it. They
    > are great bikes.
    >
    > Guy
    > --
    > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
    >
    > "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    > simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  9. Wally

    Wally Guest

    garryb59 wrote:
    > ...and [if you're interested] this was mk2, which is a better picture.
    > Much nicer frame, in terms of contruction, cleaner lines and all that,
    > but I didn't like it as much as the first and indeed the subsequent.
    > Weird. It didn't feel very stable/safe leaning into corners. I
    > understood this [based on no scientific fact] to be because I was too
    > far back over the rear wheel, and the seat too high, so I extended the
    > wheel based and lowered the seat on the next one and it made a world
    > of difference. Wish I understood what I'm doing!


    Interesting steering arrangement - is that a single rigid rod on the
    left-hand side?


    --
    Wally
    www.artbywally.com
    www.wally.myby.co.uk
     
  10. garryb59

    garryb59 Guest

    On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:10:08 GMT, "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >garryb59 wrote:
    >> ...and [if you're interested] this was mk2, which is a better picture.
    >> Much nicer frame, in terms of contruction, cleaner lines and all that,
    >> but I didn't like it as much as the first and indeed the subsequent.
    >> Weird. It didn't feel very stable/safe leaning into corners. I
    >> understood this [based on no scientific fact] to be because I was too
    >> far back over the rear wheel, and the seat too high, so I extended the
    >> wheel based and lowered the seat on the next one and it made a world
    >> of difference. Wish I understood what I'm doing!

    >
    >Interesting steering arrangement - is that a single rigid rod on the
    >left-hand side?


    Yeah, just a basic remote steering setup, a single rigid rod [this is
    an 10mm steel tube in fact, with an inside dia of 8mm )] with a 8mm
    track rod end at each end of the tube. No obviouse play, and works
    fine.

    Garry
     
  11. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Wally wrote:

    > Do the low-mounted bars have any issues with steering lock? How about
    > stopping and putting the feet down - do the bars get in the way? Similarly,
    > is it awkward to start with this type?


    Most similar questions about the differences between 'bent setups tend
    to have implementation dependent answers IME. With 'bent design not
    being nearly as restricted as diamond frame upright design you've got a
    lot more freedom to play, to get it Really Right and also to bugger it
    up completely!

    Relating the above Qs to my Streetmachine GT, the lock is limited
    compared to my upright bikes, and compared to OSS bike's I've ridden,
    but not in such a way that really compromises it as a useful bike. No
    problems stopping and getting feet down at all, and unlike OSS I can do
    a rolling dismount and get off the bike as it comes to a halt.

    Getting started on any 'bent I've tried is a matter of getting used to
    not pulling on the bars *at all*. This is very counter intuitive after
    years on uprights, especially if you're the sort that starts in a high
    gear, but wherever the bars are you'll have to get used to it, unless
    you like rides to consist of a sideways veer followed by falling off. I
    have most trouble minimising this sort of effect with OSS "tiller"
    steering, but that's just relative unfamiliarity as much as anything
    else, I think.

    > Do the high-mounted bars get in the way of the legs while pedalling, or are
    > there designs which get around that?


    Again, it's implementation dependent. An HPVel Wavey I could never
    quite get set up right, for example, but the OSS Orbit Crystal I used to
    own was never a problem and various Optima OSS designs, the HPVel
    Speedmachine and Spirit and an OSS Nazca Fiero I tried were all No Problem.

    > What's the typical amount of chain needed on a recumbent? Three standard
    > chains?


    I think 2.5 on the Streetmachine and Fiero. On the upside, the crank
    being well away from the crunge zone behind the front wheel makes for
    much less shite being sprayed onto it, even without teflon chain tubes.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, Wally
    ([email protected]) wrote:

    > That was something I had thought about. With USS steering, I guess some sort
    > of little T-bar thing could be done for mounting a computer. Do lights go on
    > the 'downtube' stub at the end of the boom (with a remote switch?)?


    Depends on what kind of lights you have to some extent. On my
    Speedmachine I have clamped to the front derailleur post a Thing like a
    Minoura Space Grip after a military ruggedisation process, being the old
    Ahead-stylee stem off TWFKAML's mountain bike and a piece of ally tubing
    which crawled out of a box in the shed. This provides a horizontal tube
    which accommodates a brace of Cateye EL-500's. The dynamo-driven lights
    on the Trice are mounted directly to the front derailleur post and it
    also has a stem-and-tube gizmo for auxiliary candlepower. Though I've
    recently experimented with moving the latter to the front mudguard
    mounts, which I /think/ I prefer (more experimentation required)

    No remote switch though.

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat
    Him.
     
  13. Jim Price

    Jim Price Guest

    garryb59 wrote:
    > On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:35 -0800, "David Martin"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a very strong bias in location
    >>for those who are doing silly things with old bikes and hot metal.
    >>
    >>With the exception of the master, wobbly jon, it seems that most of the
    >>builders are located up North.. Simon is in Dumfries, Mr Senior is in
    >>Edinburgh, Wally appears to be somewhere near the Forth, and IIRC garry
    >>is in Scotland.

    >
    >
    > You mean Chesham [nr Watford], Scotland :)
    >
    >
    >>I too am in Scotland.


    North Acton [nr London], Scotland here!

    --
    JimP
    --
    "We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan
     
  14. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Jim Price wrote:
    > garryb59 wrote:
    > > On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:35 -0800, "David Martin"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a very strong bias in location
    > >>for those who are doing silly things with old bikes and hot metal.
    > >>
    > >>With the exception of the master, wobbly jon, it seems that most of the
    > >>builders are located up North.. Simon is in Dumfries, Mr Senior is in
    > >>Edinburgh, Wally appears to be somewhere near the Forth, and IIRC garry
    > >>is in Scotland.

    > >
    > >
    > > You mean Chesham [nr Watford], Scotland :)
    > >
    > >
    > >>I too am in Scotland.

    >
    > North Acton [nr London], Scotland here!


    Jpegs!

    ...d
     
  15. Jim Price

    Jim Price Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > Jim Price wrote:
    >>North Acton [nr London], Scotland here!

    >
    >
    > Jpegs!


    I used to have a link to a rudimentary web page showing these in my sig
    line, but that's history so here's the manual version:

    http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com/side_view.jpg

    And the most individual "feature" - the foldup seat:

    http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com/seat_folded.jpg

    And the only welding needed to transform an old GT frame:

    http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com/Welding_closeup.jpg

    Those were from June 2003. Since then, the handlebars have been replaced
    with something lighter and better looking, and I've been considering
    getting a better seat than the one in the picture (which is made out of
    a camping mat and an old skateboard). I think I also got around to
    hacking the redundant crank off the lower chainset to reduce weight and
    also to use as a structural member on the following year's "proper
    chopper" project. A proper chopper is one where the forks are long (4'),
    not the Raleigh idea where the handlebars are long and the forks
    extremely short.

    ISTR the total cost was about £89.

    --
    JimP
    --
    "We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan
     
  16. Phil Clarke

    Phil Clarke Guest

    Wally wrote:

    > What make/model do you have? I'd like to take a look at some pictures if
    > possible.


    I have a M5 28/20. Visit Google & type "m5 28/20" then click "images".
    Try http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/main.php?sNewLang=GB to read of its many
    fine qualities.

    I'd sort of decided on a Street Machine when Kevin at D-Tek phoned to
    say he had this for sale. Hadnt seen one before. Its great. Had OSS
    which I tried for a month or so before switching to USS, much happier.


    > Not bothered about that - just want to try out the recumbent thing.


    if you're anywhere near Cambridgeshire, I assume you're aware of D-Tek
    and their "try loads of recumbents" half days?

    regards the aerodynamic thing. You'll get as much anecdotal "my mate
    found" evidence for this as you will for helmets. That includes my
    evidence. :) But remember that looking aero doesnt mean being aero -
    aerodynamics is about not towing vortices behind you rather than slicing
    thru the air, are arms in front of body creating pockets of turbulence
    any better than arms beside you? Maybe, maybe not. You wont know without
    a wind tunnel, and frankly do you care?
     
Loading...
Loading...