In article <[email protected]
>, "David says...
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:31:56 +0000, trent gregory hill wrote:
>> OK, I know it was a light-hearted jibe, but to speak in defense of the T'bred, I took one out for
>> a test spin several months ago and thought it was one of the coolest bikes I've sat butt upon in
>> a while. It's a smart design, combining some of the best features of conventional diamond-framed
>> and recumbent bikes into a simple, non-intimidating package that, were it more widely available,
>> bring a lot of otherwise bike-shy adults back into the fold. (It also has some of the worst
>> features of both designs, but I don't think they'd be apparent unless you were riding centuries
>> on it.)
>That is actually the biggest problem I see. The vertical body position puts all the upper body
>weight on your butt, which would really ache after a ride longer than a few miles. That is not,
>IMO, a practical design.
It might not be practical for the enthusiasts that post on this newsgroup, but I submit that WE are
not the target audience. I see lots of folks around town who probably never ride their bikes further
than 5 miles, and most of them already seem to be riding in a completely upright position on old
cruising bikes. And what is most important, they seem to insist on having the saddle low enough to
put their feet down at stops without getting off the seat. The result is a terrible cycling
position, that quickly tires you out.
For these riders the T’bread would be a fantastic improvement, and very user friendly.
Steve Christensen Midland, MI