Recumbent

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote:
>>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.

to which Tom Orr wrote:
> But you could say the same about any kind of bike. Try substituting
> recumbent with Moulton, unicycle, tandem, Litespeed, Raleigh Chopper.

Really? How many varieties of Moulton are there, with completely
different characteristics?

The Moulton is not a class of cycle with anything like the variety of
design found in recumbents. Nor is the unicycle, the Litespeed or the
Raleigh Chopper. OK, you can buy an enormous variety of unicycles with
very different riding characteristics, but the variety of machines
available doesn't come close to that of recumbents.

Tandems, of course, have plenty of variety. If someone thinks he
doesn't like tandems then it seems obvious to me that he needs to try a
recumbent tandem ;-)

--
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

 

[Jon Senior]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Is this otherwise known as weld failure?

Yeah yeah, laugh all you like! ;-)

I was actually thinking "separable" to include "not carting a portable
welding kit with the bike"! Something akin to the Trice detable rear
triangle to allow the bike to be broken up into two parts + wheels +
seat. Packing the seat down will be the hardest part, but might be
solvable with a Grasshopper stylee seat. I'll be interested to see
whether HPV start selling them as an aftermarket part for homebuilders too.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Is this otherwise known as weld failure?

Yeah yeah, laugh all you like! ;-)

I was actually thinking "separable" to include "not carting a portable
welding kit with the bike"! Something akin to the Trice detable rear
triangle to allow the bike to be broken up into two parts + wheels +
seat. Packing the seat down will be the hardest part, but might be
solvable with a Grasshopper stylee seat. I'll be interested to see
whether HPV start selling them as an aftermarket part for homebuilders too.

Jon

 

[Dave Kahn]

Jon Senior wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
>
>> Is this otherwise known as weld failure?
>
>
> Yeah yeah, laugh all you like! ;-)

It was a cheap shot but I couldn't resist it. As I mentioned once before
I'm actually very impressed with what you've done. I'd love to have a go
at some of Atomic Zombie's designs but I don't think Sue would tolerate
the raw material of junk bikes and scrap metal in the garage. :-(

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

 

[Dave Kahn]

Tom Orr wrote:

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

That must be the reason I still keep falling off. I'm obviously on the
wrong type of unicycle.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:28:06 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>- 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 ;-)

To be fair the 'bent is one of the easier ones - it goes on the roof
in a Barracuda carrier. The triplet is the real bugger.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

 

[Tom Orr]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I wrote:
> >>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.
>
> to which Tom Orr wrote:
> > But you could say the same about any kind of bike. Try substituting
> > recumbent with Moulton, unicycle, tandem, Litespeed, Raleigh Chopper.
>
> Really? How many varieties of Moulton are there, with completely
> different characteristics?
>
> The Moulton is not a class of cycle with anything like the variety of
> design found in recumbents. Nor is the unicycle, the Litespeed or the
> Raleigh Chopper. OK, you can buy an enormous variety of unicycles with
> very different riding characteristics, but the variety of machines
> available doesn't come close to that of recumbents.
>
> Tandems, of course, have plenty of variety. If someone thinks he
> doesn't like tandems then it seems obvious to me that he needs to try a
> recumbent tandem ;-)
>
> --
> 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

I was responding to all five of your points because taken together you meant
them to cover everyone. I just meant that you should maybe go a bit easier
on people like me who don't have your wide experience of different kinds of
HPVs. I do take you point though. But the only chances I have had to try a
recumbent short of going to the shop in Glasgow, have been at the Meadows
Bike Fair - too long a queue - or the meet that some in this group had last
year when they took various machines round Arthur's Seat (which I missed). I
suppose the question for me (in your terms) is - did I miss that ride for
genuine reasons or because I am a little less interested in cycling than I
might like to think I am. My view is that I would rather take a spin round
Arthur's Seat on my own bike - which I know I will really enjoy - rather
than take a chance with something else, because the time I have for cycling
is limited.

Tom.

 

[David Lamb]

I have been watching this thread with great interest. I live in West
Cork Ireland where many routes fit for cycling (off main roads) are
quite rough and often hilly. At the age of 62 I took to cycling again
after many years absense. One day two tourists went by here 'bents'
and after 'kidnapping them' for a day I became fascinated. Anyway to
cut a long story short I landed up building one from the
Dutchspeedbike kit....one of the cheaper ways to get hold of a
'bent'.... Very easy to build and fairly easy to learn to ride... a
few brazed elbows in the beginning but after about a week I was ready
for the the open road!
My observations 6 months later and 350 miles travelled:-

Advantages:-
1] Comfort..both for the bum and also the wrists and neck.
2] Faster on the flat and downhill... due to aerodynamics
3] A joy to ride and always a wish to keep on going.. hence good for
endurance
4] Greater view of one's surroundings. Easier to breath.

Disadvantages:-
1] Hard uphill due to weight. However many bents are much lighter than
my particular model. I have found comparing my average speeds on the
'bent' versus upright that I am now slightly faster on the 'bent'.
What I loose by walking hills is gained on the flat and downhill.
2] Difficult to transport on a car. This was mentioned earlier in this
thread. I find this one of the most annoying of disadvantages as I
like to travel distances and then get my 'better half' to pick me up
to bring me home!
3] Not good for carrying luggage. Here again this is peculiar to my
particular model and would require a different thread to explain.

In conclusion I along with my Brother in Law (67 yrs old) are planning
a cycling trip to France this spring. I would dearly love to take my
'bent'. However points 2 and 3 above will mean an upright.

David Lamb.


On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:01:56 +0000, Danny Colyer
<[email protected]> 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.
>
>3) Some have tried a recumbent, liked it, got on well with it, but
>ultimately decided to stick with a wedgie. Andy Welch springs to mind -
>rode a Street Machine for a couple of years, sold it and bought a
>Speedy, then sold that and bought a new wedgie.
>
>4) Some find uses for bents and a variety of wedgies, and are quite
>happy using a variety of bikes for different purposes. Peter Clinch
>springs to mind.
>
>5) Some get used to riding a bent and never want to go back to riding a
>wedgie. That's me, although I wouldn't mind having an 8-Freight, and a
>Me'N'U2, and an upright trike would be better than no trike...

 

[lowracervk2]

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.


I've had no problems with crosswinds even with this large razz fazz fairing.

30mph and the box does tend to act slightly like a sail though and push you along a tad bit faster.

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=6616

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=6615

The fairing really does wonders on my carbon bike though.

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=6996

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=7408

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=9361

 

[Danny Colyer]

Tom Orr wrote:
> I was responding to all five of your points because taken together you meant
> them to cover everyone. I just meant that you should maybe go a bit easier
> on people like me who don't have your wide experience of different kinds of
> HPVs.

Fair enough. I was about to comment that I don't really have all that
much experience, but then I thought about it and realised that I've
tried at least 13 different recumbents. There are still many more that
I'd like to try.

> But the only chances I have had to try a
> recumbent short of going to the shop in Glasgow, have been at the Meadows
> Bike Fair - too long a queue - or the meet that some in this group had last
> year when they took various machines round Arthur's Seat (which I missed). I
> suppose the question for me (in your terms) is - did I miss that ride for
> genuine reasons or because I am a little less interested in cycling than I
> might like to think I am. My view is that I would rather take a spin round
> Arthur's Seat on my own bike - which I know I will really enjoy - rather
> than take a chance with something else, because the time I have for cycling
> is limited.

This reads to me as though you'd *like* to try out a few different
machines, but you have other priorities, which I fully understand. What
makes no sense to me is when people have no desire to try out different
kinds of cycle (I have in the past seen posts from people who state that
they have no interest in trying a recumbent). That's not to say that
there's necessarily anything wrong with not wanting to try different
cycling experiences, just that its a frame of mind that's totally alien
to me.

--
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

 

[Jon Senior]

Tom Orr wrote:
> My view is that I would rather take a spin round
> Arthur's Seat on my own bike - which I know I will really enjoy - rather
> than take a chance with something else, because the time I have for cycling
> is limited.

Then you missed a trick. The actual ride was done on everyone's own
bike. The bike swap occurred beforehand at the meadows.

Once I've finished the rebuild, if you do fancy having a go drop me an
email.

Jon

 

[Tom Orr]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message

<snipped>

> Once I've finished the rebuild, if you do fancy having a go drop me an
> email.
>
> Jon

Jon

Thanks for the offer. E-mail me when your rebuild is complete.

Tom.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>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.

I saw a Streetmachine this morning, and damn tempting it looked too.
I'm not sure whether to go back when the owner is more likely to be around
and ask for a go, or when he is less likely to be around and see if it
still only has the one thin cable lock
Memo to self - get around to booking session at D-Tek.

 

[Pete Whelan]

George Hauxwell wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've heard a lot of talk on this news group about a 'Recumbent', but have
> yet to discover what exactly this is. I take it it's a type of bike. Could
> somebody please explain to me what type of bike a Recumbent is. I'm guessing
> on the lines of a tandem, am I right?
>
> George
>
it's just like being in a reclining chair

 

[Dave Larrington]

Arthur Clune wrote:
> 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.

As do I. In London. On a recumbent...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Dave Larrington]

Pete Whelan 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.

What people usually mean when they say "recumbents can't climb" is "one
develops less power in a recumbent position", but as far as I know there
have been few, if any, studies which allowed the victims^w subjects
sufficient[1] time to get fully used to the position.

FWIW I've been riding recumbents on and off since 1982, with a lot more on
since 1990, and now that a fairly steep hill I am obliged to ascend most
weeks is slightly quicker[2] on the Speedmachine than on either of my
uprights, in spite of the fact that the Speedmachine is considerably
lardier. /And/ it's about 15 km/h faster coming back down

1 - which is usually rather more than a few months
2 - though still not very fast at all at all.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Dave Larrington]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> George Hauxwell wrote:
>>> I imagine the two-wheeled variety would take some getting used too.
>
> and Guy responded:
>> Yes, it took me nearly ten minutes before I was comfortable
>
> I didn't need anywhere near that long, but then the first one I tried
> was a LWB.

As was the first recumbent two-wheeler I tried - this very one:

<URL: http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/mags/BMMay82_01.htm>

The model, sadly, was not included. The difference was that I utterly
failed to stay even remotely upright, and was thus put off recumbent
two-wheelers for the next seven years. Then I tried the prototype
Kingcycle...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Jon Senior]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> As was the first recumbent two-wheeler I tried - this very one:
>
> <URL: http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/mags/BMMay82_01.htm>

The magazine also included an article on Pregnancy and Cycling. A topic
that arose here only a few days ago. Got a copy to hand?

Jon

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington wrote:
>Pete Whelan 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.
>
>What people usually mean when they say "recumbents can't climb" is "one
>develops less power in a recumbent position"

At least sometimes they mean "recumbents are heavy". Or at least that
some recumbent is heavier than some upright.

 

[Richard Bates]

On 14 Jan 2005 21:59:24 +0000 (GMT), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington wrote:
>>Pete Whelan 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.
>>
>>What people usually mean when they say "recumbents can't climb" is "one
>>develops less power in a recumbent position"
>
>At least sometimes they mean "recumbents are heavy". Or at least that
>some recumbent is heavier than some upright.

Recumbents are more difficult to GOAP. I do that a lot.

--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?