Recumbent

  • Thread starter George Hauxwell
  • Start date



M

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
 
D

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
 
J

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
 
J

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
 
D

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
 
I

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|
|/ \|
 
D

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...
 
P

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/
 
A

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
 
P

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/
 
T

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
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
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.)
 
P

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/
 
P

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/
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
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 ...
 
P

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/
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
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.)
 
D

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
 
T

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.