> And no way you'd catch me riding one (unless I was offered a
> substantial payment) - they're horrid nasty things. Apparently the
> designers, and those who thought it worthy of receiving awards, have
> no idea what makes a bike rideable.
That may have been true with the earlier ones, but the later models are
said to be better:
<
www.strida.co.uk/media/uploads/faqs/strida_faq_197_Strida_Tips_V2
_Mark.pdf>
Myth 3. Strida has poor ergonomics.
For racing, and where riding at 9/10th or more is normal, then getting
the best aerodynamics and power stroke is important to extract the last
1/10 seconds. The snag is the same setup advice is passed down (as
hearsay eg on cycling forums etc.) as ‘the norm’ for all bicycle use –
which is total rubbish ! In town, good visibility from a close handle bar
upright riding position is more important than lying flat (with bended
back and straining neck) for aerodynamics. Hence the classic ‘sit up and
beg’ dutch bikes. Many folding bikes aim to please the ‘racing
cyclist/enthusiast’ some are even designed by racers – but is this
appropriate for urban use ?
I felt not, and during the stringent masters degree program from which
Strida was evolved, I met up with a top UK ergonomist. He helped me to do
tests (with a fully adjustable test rig) and understand the riding habits
of potential users: mainly urban, multi-model commuters in the 5 to 95%
ile range, from this work the upright riding position for favoured, and
the bent arms that taller riders (like me) get from being close to the
bars does not matter, as arms are bent when riding.
Myth 4. Strida has poor handling.
Originally the ergonomic test rigs were also used to adjust the steering
axis, trail etc. that goes into giving a bike its handling
characteristics. Also a lot of cycling books and handling theories were
studied. For the 1st Stridas (eg Strida 1’s), I followed the traditional
‘handling theories’, about what makes a bike handle well – and the
handling was OK, but NOT perfect, so the myth was partially true back
then. At the time I put this mismatch between the traditional wisdom of
bike steering geometry and the actual ‘feel’ of the early bikes down to
the short wheel base.
When Steedman bought the company he was keen to perfect the Strida. And
he wanted to improve its handling, so he consulted all the ‘experts’ in
the industry and they all came up with various theories about what would
improve the handling – most suggested various angles and tweaks based on
traditional theories, and most were wrong !! – We had a special fully
adjustable test rig, and so could try out the theories and other
settings. This was harder than expected because of the lack of ‘Strida
virgins’ … ie the human soon learns to adapt, and so familiarity with the
bikes handling soon spoiled objectivity. In the end we changed 2 key
factors: 1. we added ball bearings to the main loadbearing (lower) joint,
2. We used the geometry settings from the rig most preferred by ‘strida
virgins’. The steering geometry of a Strida (from Strida 2.5) is now
quite different from the theories, but it works ! For a bike with such a
short wheelbase the handling is now really good, a well balanced rider
can ride hands off (don’t try this at home folks !).
