Recumbent

[Peter Clinch]

Tired wrote:

> The more I see of these the more I fancy a go!
> Any dealers in the North West or Wales ?

There's Rainbow Recumbents on the Wirral;

http://www.rainbow-recumbents.co.uk/index.htm

It's "by appointment" rather than a shop, no dealings with them so I
don't know any more than they're there and they sell the Dutch Rainbow line.

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/

 

[squeaker]

On 9 Dec, 10:27, "Tired" <[email protected]> wrote:
> What are they like going up hill? Seems such a relaxed position and most
> video's I've seen show them as fast on the flat and downhill but not much
> about them as a climber.
As others have said: compared to what exactly? Here's a link to a
video from a company that claims to make a fast climbing 'bent
http://www.lightningbikes.com/cyber.htm#Can a recumbent climb hills? Video
The P38 is on the light side (for a 'bent - sub 10kg is getting
exotic), uses a relatively upright seat position (gives a more
'closed' torso to leg angle - claimed better for power production) and
has a good stiff bottom bracket boom. But doesn't 'float my boat', as
I prefer the comfort of a fully suspended bike (you can't bunny-hop a
'bent). I recall reading somewhere (but can't find it at the mo.)
that the reclined position looses ~10% in sustained power due to leg
position relative to heart.
Difficult to ride? 'Different' would be a better description. Again
as others have said, for a given mass, the roll rate about the tyre/
road interface is faster the nearer the centre of gravity is to the
ground, but user friendliness seem to vary quite a lot between
designs. Suggest you do some reading on www.bentrideronline.com and
www.bhpc.org.uk, then maybe try a trike to see how you get on with the
recumbent bit before trying a bike. One issue you may struggle on is
how low do you go? Generally lower = faster (have a play at
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm) but IME wetter, and you
can't see over hedges, or parked cars, as well.
Finally, a warning: due to their speed / comfort, they can be
addictive! Enjoy

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

squeaker wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 10:27, "Tired" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are they like going up hill? Seems such a relaxed position and
>> most video's I've seen show them as fast on the flat and downhill
>> but not much about them as a climber.

[........]

> Difficult to ride? 'Different' would be a better description. Again
> as others have said, for a given mass, the roll rate about the tyre/
> road interface is faster the nearer the centre of gravity is to the
> ground, but user friendliness seem to vary quite a lot between
> designs. Suggest you do some reading on www.bentrideronline.com and
> www.bhpc.org.uk, then maybe try a trike to see how you get on with the
> recumbent bit before trying a bike.

An alternative approach to solving the ride "difficulty" is to visit a
dealer with a big range of machines who offers lessons/trial days. D-Tek
near Ely (Cambridge) is one, and I suspect that some other dealers may offer
something similar.


D-Tek work their half-day by starting riders on very easy to control
machines which are not that different to a "foot forward" upright. Two
trips along the street, and swap to the next machine which is slightly more
reclined. After three or four swaps, one is riding "proper" recumbents.
Swap around a few more to get a view on which types of seat, angle,
steering, etc. is preferred. Then take the preferred machines out for a
decent run in the country.

As a learning process, it seems to works far quicker for most riders than
trying to balance a full recumbent machine from scratch.



- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <43977fed-16b5-456b-b494-4eddabd2d4de@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, squeaker wrote:
>The P38 is on the light side (for a 'bent - sub 10kg is getting
>exotic), uses a relatively upright seat position (gives a more
>'closed' torso to leg angle - claimed better for power production) and
>has a good stiff bottom bracket boom. But doesn't 'float my boat', as
>I prefer the comfort of a fully suspended bike (you can't bunny-hop a
>'bent). I recall reading somewhere (but can't find it at the mo.)
>that the reclined position looses ~10% in sustained power due to leg
>position relative to heart.

IIRC Bicycling Science says something similar, though I thought it
was a more reclined position loses relative to the closed position,
nothing to do with relative heart position - but perhaps I'm thinking
of a different report. And it probably matters if the rider is used
to training on an upright bike as well.
The better aerodynamics of the more reclined position are less important
going uphill than they are on the flat and downhill.

 

[bornfree]

On 10 Dec, 08:43, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Artemisia wrote:
> > What we didn't get round to discussing was whether the fact that you can
> > stand on the pedals on an upright bike, and thus convert gravity into
> > forward motion, is not an advantage over your position on a recumbent,
> > where the available force is only what you can push from your abdomen,
> > unaided by God or Newton.
>
> On a 'bent you can push against the seat, which is actually a much more
> effective thing to push against than gravity, so not being able to honk
> isn't the disadvantage most people paint it as. As well as the seat
> being a more static point, you don't waste all that energy moving your
> body up and down.
>

On a common bike you are not pushing against gravity, that would mean
the pedals are above your head. Think about it.

 

[Peter Clinch]

bornfree wrote:
> On 10 Dec, 08:43, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Artemisia wrote:
>>> What we didn't get round to discussing was whether the fact that you can
>>> stand on the pedals on an upright bike, and thus convert gravity into
>>> forward motion, is not an advantage over your position on a recumbent,
>>> where the available force is only what you can push from your abdomen,
>>> unaided by God or Newton.
>> On a 'bent you can push against the seat, which is actually a much more
>> effective thing to push against than gravity, so not being able to honk
>> isn't the disadvantage most people paint it as. As well as the seat
>> being a more static point, you don't waste all that energy moving your
>> body up and down.
>>
>
> On a common bike you are not pushing against gravity, that would mean
> the pedals are above your head. Think about it.

I think it's a problem with English rather than physics. The force you
are resisting and the thing you push against in order to resist it take
a common term in English.
i.e., you push against the pedals in order to push against gravity and
rise up.

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/

 

[bornfree]

On 10 Dec, 12:00, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > On 10 Dec, 08:43, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Artemisia wrote:
> >>> What we didn't get round to discussing was whether the fact that you can
> >>> stand on the pedals on an upright bike, and thus convert gravity into
> >>> forward motion, is not an advantage over your position on a recumbent,
> >>> where the available force is only what you can push from your abdomen,
> >>> unaided by God or Newton.
> >> On a 'bent you can push against the seat, which is actually a much more
> >> effective thing to push against than gravity, so not being able to honk
> >> isn't the disadvantage most people paint it as. As well as the seat
> >> being a more static point, you don't waste all that energy moving your
> >> body up and down.
>
> > On a common bike you are not pushing against gravity, that would mean
> > the pedals are above your head. Think about it.
>
> I think it's a problem with English rather than physics. The force you
> are resisting and the thing you push against in order to resist it take
> a common term in English.
> i.e., you push against the pedals in order to push against gravity and
> rise up.
>

Ok. For my money I have always found it easier on my stamina to cycle
with the pedals below me. In a recumbent some of your leg muscles have
to hold your legs in the more upright position associated with the
bike.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ok. For my money I have always found it easier on my stamina to cycle
> with the pedals below me. In a recumbent some of your leg muscles have
> to hold your legs in the more upright position associated with the
> bike.

'have to'? Mine don't.

I could sleep in my recumbent with my feet on the pedals (though I
haven't actually done so - only dozed a bit). I can't sleep in the
saddle of any of my uprights.

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

 

[Colin]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:14:44 -0800, bornfree wrote:

>
> Ok. For my money I have always found it easier on my stamina to cycle
> with the pedals below me. In a recumbent some of your leg muscles have
> to hold your legs in the more upright position associated with the
> bike.

not when they're clipped to the pedals

--
Colin

 

[squeaker]

On 10 Dec, 10:14, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> An alternative approach to solving the ride "difficulty" is to visit a
> dealer with a big range of machines who offers lessons/trial days. D-Tek
> near Ely (Cambridge) is one, and I suspect that some other dealers may offer
> something similar.
>
Agreed: London Recumbents (Greenwich Park - where I lost my recumbent
'cherry') and Future Cycles (Forest Row) do something similar, but
IMHO neither have the same extensive range of machines as D-Tek.
This approach also reduces the 'risk' of never getting past the trike
stage

 

[Peter Clinch]

Colin wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:14:44 -0800, bornfree wrote:
>
>> Ok. For my money I have always found it easier on my stamina to cycle
>> with the pedals below me. In a recumbent some of your leg muscles have
>> to hold your legs in the more upright position associated with the
>> bike.
>
> not when they're clipped to the pedals

Indeed. Unless one has a compact like an HPVel Spirit or similar I'd
suggest clipless pedals are closer to de-rigeur on a 'bent than an upright.
Thanks to being attached, my feet stay in place, and my legs follow suit.

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/

 

[Tim Hall]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:06:22 -0800 (PST), squeaker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10 Dec, 10:14, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> An alternative approach to solving the ride "difficulty" is to visit a
>> dealer with a big range of machines who offers lessons/trial days. D-Tek
>> near Ely (Cambridge) is one, and I suspect that some other dealers may offer
>> something similar.
>>
>Agreed: London Recumbents (Greenwich Park - where I lost my recumbent
>'cherry')

Without wishing to intrude on what must have been a very peronal
moment, surely London Recumbents are in Dulwich Park.


--

Tim

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

[dkahn400]

On Dec 10, 5:55 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can't sleep in the saddle of any of my uprights.

Not for very far anyway.

--
Dave...

 

[squeaker]

On 11 Dec, 09:35, Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Without wishing to intrude on what must have been a very peronal
> moment, surely London Recumbents are in Dulwich Park.
Indeed, Tim: yet another senior moment: doh
Sorry to all for the confusion....