Two wheels does it

jj1075 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?

Just wonderin'.......

Is this
rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?

This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
things that are different.

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

Victor Kan wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
::::: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
:::::
::
::: Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will
::: stand while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on
::: a flat or downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of
::: uprights over bents.
::
:: The standard response to that is that with a recumbent you can press
:: your back against the seat and essentially do leg presses against the
:: pedals as an alternative to climbing out of the saddle.

Interesting. I don't yet have enough experience to really have a feel for
this. I do leg presses at the gym and the hills I did climb didn't feel
like a leg press, but perhaps steepness is a factor! That 45 deg leg press
would be a seriously sloping hill! 🙂

::
:: As Pat Robertson showed, leg presses can move a lot of weight :-):
::
:: http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/

Wow...something seems strange there...very strange.

::
::: However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs,
::: though I do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there.
::: I'd guess on a century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being
::: slower.
::
:: Personally, I don't use the leg press technique when climbing on my
:: recumbent. I tend to gear down and spin without noticeably pushing
:: against the seat back more.

I thought this was the accepted and approved method of climbing! 🙂

::
:: Climbing steeper inclines is definitely less satisfying on my
:: recumbent bikes than it is on my DF bikes (my fixed gear with a
:: 35-559, 48x18 gear is especially satisfying). I tend not to be able
:: to get my heart rate up into a good climbing zone. One one
:: particularly steep/long climb last year though, I managed to go
:: beyond my comfort zone on a climb on my recumbent and felt like [censored]
:: later in the day (though zooming down that climb on my way home was
:: very satisfying).
::

'Bents seem to like to accelerate like crazy on the downhill.

Johnny Sunset said:

G.T. said:

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>> :: logistical vehicles.
>>> ::
>>> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>> ::
>>> :: Jobst Brandt
>>>
>>> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't

count.

Quoted message said:

>>> Please explain.
>> Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
>> comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
>> shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
>> "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
doesn't make them so.

Try looking up the definition of bicycle in a dictionary.

I can't read but I do see a photo of a bike very similar to mine next to
the letters b i c y c l e in this dictionary thingie I'm holding here.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

G.T. said:

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

Quoted message said:

It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not
those funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to
recumbent doesn't make them so.

Finally, some harsh, self-righteous anger I can get behind! <eg>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?

Just wonderin'.......

Is this
rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?

This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
things that are different.

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...<<

Uhhh, I was actually just asking. You implied the rest. And you didn't
answer the question.

Thanks for the tolerance...

jj1075 < I thought I saw an NG for recumbents once but figured my new ISP
didn't carry it>

[email hidden] wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
magazines"?:
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
also
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html ...

Not that I've seen one 'round Portland, which seems to be almost as
motorcycle-mad as bicycle-mad.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen one of these around Portland,
either:
http://www.bikeweb.com/node/378

Jeff

In article
<[email hidden]>,

jj1075 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?

Just wonderin'.......

Is this
rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?

This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
things that are different.

There is one; it is a rogues' gallery. I'd sooner read
rec.games.chess.politics.

--
Michael Press

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> :: logistical vehicles.
> ::
> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> ::
> :: Jobst Brandt
>
> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].

[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
[2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
[3] Hey, I resemble that remark.

hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
cranky.

Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

Since I continue to answer you, why I just don't know, I guess I am
'dealing with it'. Are you directing me to moderate my view of you,
not be cranky? Nope, not today, not tomorrow. As you mentioned about
yourself, you like to argue, so do I with some people. If I get cranky
with you, well....deal with it.

JeffWills said:

[email hidden] wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
magazines"?:
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html

ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
you've seen double as planes or boats?

The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical chopper
with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who want motorized
two wheelers with real performance and versatility - not mere style -
ride with their body weight up and centered over their legs.

Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
more conventional bike.

- Frank Krygowski

Mike Kruger said:

This is at least in part because I live in Illinois. In Illinois this year
they converted the tolls roads so you no longer stop for tolls if you have a
transponder (probably RFID based, but I haven't looked into it). It's
probably only a matter of time before currently free expressways are
converted to this. The city of Chicago also sold one expressway (the Chicago
Skyway, Interstate 90) to a private firm.

If people want to talk about Orwellianisms, this is a good place to
start. The toll systems in Houston use cameras to capture your license
plate as you pass through. They originally said this was done to catch
folks running the gates without transpnders. But the ugly truth has
come to light.

They mandate one transponder per vehicle (with a maintenance fee per
transponder). If you move the transponder to another vehicle, they send
you a dirty letter about moving your transponder. How do they know? The
cameras capture the license plate of *every* vehicle, digitize it
through optical character recognition, and compare the transponder
number to the digitized license plate number. If the numbers don't
match, you get a dirty letter.

Also keep in mind that they can track your progress around the toll
road. It won't be long before they start matching times so they can
automatically issue speeding tickets (as is the case with the Turner
Turnpike between Oklahoma City and Tulsa). As more readers are added,
vehicles can be tracked with greater precision.

Of course, there are very real concerns about tracking consumers and
products through ID tags. Just take a look at these links:

http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html
http://www.nocards.org/welcome/index.shtml

But, of course this is WAAAAAAYYYYYY off-topic. At least until they
start tracking cyclists and charging user's fees for paths.

-Buck

JeffWills said:

[email hidden] wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
magazines"?:
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
also
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html ...

Not that I've seen one 'round Portland, which seems to be almost as
motorcycle-mad as bicycle-mad.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen one of these around Portland,
either:
http://www.bikeweb.com/node/378

Jeff

Dear Jeff,

At a proposed 36-unit production level, the Alligator may still be
lurking down in the "practically unknown" levels of the enormous
motorcycle swamp.

🙂

I like the first picture, which shows how the rider's face will be
stuck in the carburetor intakes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[email hidden] wrote:
:: JeffWills wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::: <snip>
:::: As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
::::
:::: Cheers,
::::
:::: Carl Fogel
:::
::: "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
::: magazines"?:
::: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
::
:: ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
:: unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
:: car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
:: you've seen double as planes or boats?
::
:: The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical
:: chopper with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who
:: want motorized two wheelers with real performance and versatility -
:: not mere style - ride with their body weight up and centered over
:: their legs.
::
:: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
:: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
:: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
:: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
:: with a more conventional bike.
::

What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

::
:: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
:: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
:: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
:: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
:: with a more conventional bike.
::

What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?

Um... fine... In general, do what you like.

But ISTM your question doesn't quite match my statement. If someone
wants a recumbent as their _only_ bike, that's fine for me. If they
want it as a second bike, that's fine. And the same can be said for
unicycles, penny farthings, folding bikes, fixed gear bikes, etc.
There can be times and places for all these.

I just think more conventional bikes will continue to serve almost all
people best, almost all the time.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski said:

...
Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
more conventional bike.

Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
month?

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: JeffWills wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::: <snip>
:::: As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
::::
:::: Cheers,
::::
:::: Carl Fogel
:::
::: "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
::: magazines"?:
::: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
::
:: ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
:: unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
:: car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
:: you've seen double as planes or boats?
::
:: The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical
:: chopper with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who
:: want motorized two wheelers with real performance and versatility -
:: not mere style - ride with their body weight up and centered over
:: their legs.
::
:: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
:: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
:: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
:: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
:: with a more conventional bike.
::

What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?

This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
an upright bicycle.

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

quote=''Roger Zoul said:

Is it a
foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see why,
frankly)?

No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
disadvantage for anything moderately steep.

Robert[/QUOTE]

Upright bicycle. Nothing to brace your back against. Huge disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
Dan

Dan Burkhart said:

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

Is it a
foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see

why,

Quoted message said:

frankly)?

No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
disadvantage for anything moderately steep.

Robert

Upright bicycle. Nothing to brace your back against. Huge disadvantage
for anything moderately steep.
Dan

Dear Dan,

Moderation is fine in small doses . . .

But now I want to know if recumbents can get up the famous short,
steep climbs in California, such as the Fargo Street hill in Los
Angeles.

I honestly don't know the answer, but I can't find any pictures or
mention of recumbents here:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Here's a new kind of entry:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo/kermit50.jpg

The tall-bike probably handles well at very low speeds, an advantage
over most recumbents on this hill, where riders often zig-zag to
reduce the grade.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Johnny Sunset said:

Frank Krygowski said:

...
Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
more conventional bike.

Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
month?

Nope. Not me.

Heck, if I want to take offense, there are lots richer opportunities!

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

But now I want to know if recumbents can get up the famous short,
steep climbs in California, such as the Fargo Street hill in Los
Angeles.

I honestly don't know the answer, but I can't find any pictures or
mention of recumbents here:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Here's a new kind of entry:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo/kermit50.jpg

I dunno if I could make it up Fargo on my recumbent... but that's not
really a test. The last time I tried riding up Fargo on an upright I
fell over after about 100 feet. I *have* ridden up 20% slopes on my
recumbent successfully without any issues beyond spinning the rear
wheel in gravel.

(FWIW: Dave Wyman (http://www.pbase.com/coaster/image/57936237) was a
classmate of my brother's. We did a couple rides together- nice to see
he's still an animal.)

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Um... fine... In general, do what you like.

But ISTM your question doesn't quite match my statement. If someone
wants a recumbent as their _only_ bike, that's fine for me. If they
want it as a second bike, that's fine. And the same can be said for
unicycles, penny farthings, folding bikes, fixed gear bikes, etc.
There can be times and places for all these.

I just think more conventional bikes will continue to serve almost all
people best, almost all the time.

- Frank Krygowski

Well... I have seven-ish bikes- 3 uprights, two incomplete projects
(both upright), and two recumbents. I'll switch off to whatever suits
my intended route or activity for the day. Since the Tour Easy has
fenders and a fairing, I rode it in today's showers.

My wife, though, is a woman of strong opinions. I've tried to get her
to try riding different uprights since switching, with no success.
She's not giving up her Tour Easy, no way, no how. She also has her own
opinions about appropriate cycling clothing:
http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/diane-big.jpg

Jeff