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/