Recumbent

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by George Hauxwell, Jan 5, 2005.

  1. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:00:35 +0000, Mike Causer
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >the moderately low Speed Ross


    You need to pedal quicker then.


    Tim
     


  2. Mike Causer

    Mike Causer Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:21:54 +0000, Tim Hall wrote:

    > On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:00:35 +0000, Mike Causer
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>the moderately low Speed Ross

    >
    > You need to pedal quicker then.


    Nah, I need to lose 35 years.....

    ... and the aerobelly.



    Mike
     
  3. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 6/1/05 5:39 pm, in article [email protected], "Pete Whelan"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Peter Clinch wrote:
    >> Nick Kew wrote:
    >>>> and hard work on the uphill.

    >>
    >> Have a look at the movie on the Lightning site of Tim Brummer cruising
    >> past the field going up a hill during a race on an R84. It depends on
    >> the bike overall, not the seating position.

    >
    > I don't think they take any more energy to get up a hill compared to a
    > conventional bike. I've logged my heart rate on both my upright
    > lightweight tourer and on the trice and found virtually no difference
    > apart from speed.
    >


    Umm.. are you sure the first of your sentences is correct in the light of
    the rest..

    If work rate is constant, as determined by pulse, then the time over which
    that work is carried out is what determines the energy.

    ...d
     
  4. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > The main problem is that you cannot decouple your body weight from the
    > bike on a recumbent. Weight transfer is an important part of
    > rough/moving/slippery surfaces and being able to move your body weight
    > back, forwards or to the side important to good progress. I know how I
    > would get an upwrong road bike up an 8" kerb without problems but I'm
    > not sure about a recumbent


    OK so you can't easily do a wheelie on a bent, but I can certainly
    unweight the seat on mine by sitting upright. Darth Ben uses this
    technique when off-roading on his Streetmachine! It allows a little more
    "brute force" balance control and reduces the strain on the frame when
    riding over rough road.

    > The other negatives I would add are:
    >
    > - transport, especially by car. I can throw 4 upwrongs on the back of
    > the car quite easily. I have seen what JZGYK needs for his collection ;-)


    So ride! My bent has covered a fair amount of the country by train and
    if all goes according to plan will be travelling to France by train this
    Easter. As someone with no car I never really consider the ease of
    moving the bike by car. I am toying with the idea of a separable bent
    but it's not even at the drawing board stage.

    > - use in inner city traffic where an upwrong allows you to look over the
    > cars and to weave through the small openings they leave. Cycling down
    > the outside of one car, across the front of it and down the inside of
    > the next is pretty difficult on a bent, again a victim of weight
    > transfer balancing.


    So don't. I've only once been unduly held up on the bent and that was
    when I got caught in a traffic jam due to road closure. I turned around
    and went the long way. I agree that a more upright beast can be easier
    in heavy traffic, but the grin factor of a recumbent is often enough to
    justify taking a longer, quieter route. ;-)

    > - pushing. If you do need to get off and walk many bents are impossibly
    > low for pushing, especially if you need to operate the steering, without
    > risking your back.


    What Pete said!

    I don't think that recumbents are the be-all and end-all of cycling, but
    I do know that a lot of the perceived problems turn out to be more
    manageable than expected. In one of my (much) earlier posts to this NG I
    criticised them for the reliance on non-standard parts. After having it
    amply demonstrated that this was not the case, I proceeded to build one.

    Jon
     
  5. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Peter Clinch wrote:
    > Have a look at the movie on the Lightning site of Tim Brummer cruising
    > past the field going up a hill during a race on an R84. It depends on
    > the bike overall, not the seating position.


    One of my christmas presents was "Bicycle Design" by Mike Burrows. It
    contains an interesting table comparing times up a hill on various
    different bikes (2 x Giant IIRC and a ratcatcher). The range of times is
    not very high and while the difference might be noticeable in a race,
    the high scoring Giant in question was a top-end compact frame road bike.

    Despite being "slower" up hills, I still found that I passed almost all
    of the cyclists that I normally pass on an upright while commuting and
    after a while I could hold an average rolling speed of only 1-2mph less
    than I manage on the fixer uphill.

    Jon
     
  6. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 7/1/05 8:29 am, in article [email protected], "Jon
    Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

    > I don't think that recumbents are the be-all and end-all of cycling, but
    > I do know that a lot of the perceived problems turn out to be more
    > manageable than expected. In one of my (much) earlier posts to this NG I
    > criticised them for the reliance on non-standard parts. After having it
    > amply demonstrated that this was not the case, I proceeded to build one.


    The main disadvantage that I find with 'bents is that, unlike a wedgie, you
    cannot ride a bike set up for someone significantly taller than yourself.

    In this case 'significant' could be as little as one inch more on the inside
    leg. The only one I could ride in Edinburgh was the.Mark's windcheetah
    (which was fun, even if the steering is an acquired taste).

    ...d
     
  7. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:28:06 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > The main problem is that you cannot decouple your body weight from the
    > bike on a recumbent. Weight transfer is an important part of
    > rough/moving/slippery surfaces and being able to move your body weight
    > back, forwards or to the side important to good progress. I know how I
    > would get an upwrong road bike up an 8" kerb without problems but I'm
    > not sure about a recumbent


    I'd struggle to get up an 8" step on the trice, I agree, but you do
    have teh ability to shift body weight. Indeed, on fast, loose
    surfaces I do quite a lot of it - sit upright/forwards and you get a
    useful amount of body weight shifting. In this circumstance chucking
    your body weight around is probably at least as useful as steering,
    since the slick high-pressure tyres aren't at their most grippy on
    gravel. It's particularly enjoyable taking corners sideways, for some
    reason.

    > - pushing. If you do need to get off and walk many bents are impossibly
    > low for pushing, especially if you need to operate the steering, without
    > risking your back.


    So pull it. The trice is beautifully docile if you stand beside the
    pannier rack, reach down, grasp rack and straighten up. It follows
    you about nicely, and no straining on teh back. If you had a pannier
    attached you can sit it in teh seat while doing this.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  8. dkahn400

    dkahn400 Guest

    Jon Senior wrote:

    > I am toying with the idea of a separable bent
    > but it's not even at the drawing board stage.

    Is this otherwise known as weld failure?

    --
    Dave...
     
  9. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    David Martin wrote:

    > The main disadvantage that I find with 'bents is that, unlike a wedgie, you
    > cannot ride a bike set up for someone significantly taller than yourself.


    But on, say, the Streetmachine, a couple of Allen bolts and slide the
    boom and voila, the frame is now shorter or taller. To do the job
    properly requires some links in or out of the chain, but that won't
    affect a FWD or something like the Kettwiesel with a built in device to
    keep the chain properly tense at any length.

    In this respect for sizing, many 'bents are considerably more adjustable
    and configurable than diamond frames.

    > In this case 'significant' could be as little as one inch more on the inside
    > leg. The only one I could ride in Edinburgh was the.Mark's windcheetah
    > (which was fun, even if the steering is an acquired taste).


    The Windcheetah is built to size and though there's some adjustment in
    the seat position it's really a one size fits one design. With a bit of
    jiggery pokery sliding boom models are one size fits most. Ben has a
    Toxy model that suits shorter riders in general than many 'bents.

    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/
     
  10. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
    : in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven

    :> Cycling down the outside of one car, across the front of it and down the
    :> inside of the next is pretty difficult on a bent

    : I'm not convinced that's a negative.

    While I understand Simon's point, I do this all the time in York. There's
    various places where the traffic is stationary and the only alternative
    route is a large detour (e.g. the bridges) and someimes this is necessary
    to make progress when someone has edged too close to the kerb/too far
    out etc.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
    It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness
     
  11. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Arthur Clune wrote:

    > While I understand Simon's point, I do this all the time in York. There's
    > various places where the traffic is stationary and the only alternative
    > route is a large detour (e.g. the bridges) and someimes this is necessary
    > to make progress when someone has edged too close to the kerb/too far
    > out etc.


    Of course, a unicycle is intrinsically better for this, being able to
    turn on the spot! ;-)

    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. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Jon Senior wrote:
    >
    > I don't think that recumbents are the be-all and end-all of cycling, but
    > I do know that a lot of the perceived problems turn out to be more
    > manageable than expected. In one of my (much) earlier posts to this NG I
    > criticised them for the reliance on non-standard parts. After having it
    > amply demonstrated that this was not the case, I proceeded to build one.
    >


    All bikes have strengths and weaknesses - I wouldn't take my road bike
    down round the Seven Stanes nor use my FS bike for a long distance road
    ride but I get the impression that discussing the negatives of bents is
    seen as an attack on them. For you options like taking the train may
    well suit you but I presume you don't have a family and three other
    bents to take with you. Bents as far as I am concerned are great fun to
    ride and much better than an upwrong for some things but quite a lot
    more restricted as a general purpose bike. YMMV.

    Tony
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
    >Arthur Clune wrote:
    >
    >> While I understand Simon's point, I do this all the time in York. There's
    >> various places where the traffic is stationary and the only alternative
    >> route is a large detour (e.g. the bridges) and someimes this is necessary
    >> to make progress when someone has edged too close to the kerb/too far
    >> out etc.

    >
    >Of course, a unicycle is intrinsically better for this, being able to
    >turn on the spot! ;-)


    So can a bicycle, you just have to pull a wheelie first. (I'm not saying
    I can do it personally, but I can't ride a unicycle either.)
     
  14. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    > All bikes have strengths and weaknesses - I wouldn't take my road bike
    > down round the Seven Stanes nor use my FS bike for a long distance road
    > ride but I get the impression that discussing the negatives of bents is
    > seen as an attack on them.


    I often see it as the discussion failing to address the point that
    'bents are just as varied amongst themselves as uprights, but despite
    this they tend to be discussed as if they are a single, limited class of
    cycles where far more than the seating position was held in common.

    If while discussing "uprights" people almost always assumed that they
    all had the characteristics of, say, drop bar 700c road racers, I think
    people would get a bit miffed at the amount of gratuitous point missing
    going on, though we very often see something of the like for 'bents, as
    if a Bike E is basically the same as far as riding characteristics as a
    Baron.

    > Bents as far as I am concerned are great fun to
    > ride and much better than an upwrong for some things but quite a lot
    > more restricted as a general purpose bike.


    And here we go again... Something like a Grasshopper would be a damn
    site more useful to more people as a "general purpose bike" than a
    serious road racer, yet because the road racer is an upright it doesn't
    get caught in this "we'll sweep everything into a single category so
    broad as to mean nothing useful, and assume any criticism of any part
    applies to the whole" business that afflicts the wider perception of 'bents.

    They're not all the same. They're not all even similar. Just like
    uprights.

    > YMMV.


    Specifically according to one's particular choice of cycle, wherever one
    sits in relation to the pedals.

    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/
     
  15. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Alan Braggins wrote:

    > So can a bicycle, you just have to pull a wheelie first. (I'm not saying
    > I can do it personally, but I can't ride a unicycle either.)


    (In the grand spirit of continuing discussions long after they cease to
    be useful... ;-))

    But this requires the space to swing the front end of the bike in, not
    always available in nose to tail traffic.

    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/
     
  16. Mike Causer twisted the electrons to say:
    > Hills are not much of a problem where I live, but wind is, and it is
    > very much easier to pedal into a headwind with the recumbent's better
    > aerodynamics.


    What about crosswinds? Particularly in the case of a 'bent fitted with a
    fairing? (Speaking as someone who had an "interesting" crosswind induced
    wobble going past York Minster early this week!)
    --
    These opinions might not even be mine ...
    Let alone connected with my employer ...
     
  17. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Alistair Gunn wrote:

    > What about crosswinds? Particularly in the case of a 'bent fitted with a
    > fairing? (Speaking as someone who had an "interesting" crosswind induced
    > wobble going past York Minster early this week!)


    I find I'm slightly less prone to "interesting" sidewinds on my car-seat
    height touring 'bent than on my uprights, though certainly not immune to
    them. Wind speed tends to decrease the closer you are to the ground, so
    this isn't too surprising.

    Not tried a fairing, so can't comment directly, but have noted that the
    two wheel racing Lightning cloth faired streamliner isn't recommended
    for use in high winds but OTOH Velomobiles (generally trikes) seem to be
    fairly happy.

    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/
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
    >Alan Braggins wrote:
    >
    >> So can a bicycle, you just have to pull a wheelie first. (I'm not saying
    >> I can do it personally, but I can't ride a unicycle either.)

    >
    >(In the grand spirit of continuing discussions long after they cease to
    >be useful... ;-))
    >
    >But this requires the space to swing the front end of the bike in, not
    >always available in nose to tail traffic.


    And in that grand spirit: you do the wheelie where there is room, and then
    perch on the handlebars treating it as a giraffe until you need to turn
    on the spot. (Where, again, "you" means the sort of person who can do this
    sort of flatland trick, not me. Only I might be making it up this time.)
     
  19. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Alistair Gunn wrote:
    > What about crosswinds? Particularly in the case of a 'bent fitted with a
    > fairing? (Speaking as someone who had an "interesting" crosswind induced
    > wobble going past York Minster early this week!)


    I've never ridden a faired bike, but I've been riding a Street Machine
    without a fairing for the last 4 years. It handles significantly better
    in a crosswind than my ATB ever did, possibly because of the smaller
    front wheel.

    There's one place on my commute where I typically had to get off and
    walk 2 or 3 times a year because of crosswinds when I was riding a
    wedgie. I've never had any such problems on the Street Machine.

    I'd quite like to try a Streamer fairing, but I'm not prepared to shell
    out 240 quid for one without a test ride. Bikefix was unable to provide
    a test ride last time I had an opportunity to visit London. Anyway,
    HPVelo claims that, with the Streamer, "side winds are felt as almost
    beneficial":
    <URL:http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/streamer/index_e.html>

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
     
  20. Tom Orr

    Tom Orr Guest

    Danny Colyer wrote:
    > Alan Braggins wrote:
    >> At least one poster here has a recumbent and some uprights, and finds
    >> an upright more appropriate for at least some journeys (not racing),
    >> so there can be genuine disadvantages too, beyond the price.

    >
    > ISTM there's a spectrum of opinion on how appropriate recumbents are
    > for varied use:
    >
    > 1) Some people have never ridden a recumbent and have no interest in
    > ever riding one. That makes no sense to me - I can't imagine not
    > wanting to try out different kinds of cycle.
    >
    > 2) Some have tried a recumbent, didn't get on with it and have
    > therefore decided that they don't like recumbents. My opinion is
    > that they simply haven't tried the right bent yet.
    >

    <snipped>

    But you could say the same about any kind of bike. Try substituting
    recumbent with Moulton, unicycle, tandem, Litespeed, Raleigh Chopper.

    Tom.
     
Loading...
Loading...