What in your mind makes perfect loaded touring bike?

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

>> Trailer or panniers?
>
> I've been told panniers are easier

Depends on the load. For light loads panniers are easier, for big
loads trailers are usually better as they affect handling less and
are much easier to load. There's a grey area somewhere between the
two...

>>> Is it upright or recumbent?
>> There is no question: the only way to see America by bike is feet
>> first.
>
> How come? Can you explain? Just easier on 48 year old
> body?

An upright will do the job the too, but most serious upright
touring bikes tend to put you in some degree of crouch for
aerodynamics. While improving efficiency it gives you a default
view of the tarmac a few meters in front of the bike: you have to
make a conscious effort to look up to see around you. On a 'bent
the natural default view is straight ahead, not ahead and down, so
you'll /see/ America better. Unless there's a wall or hedge at the
level where a wedgie rider can see over and you can't, of course,
but IME those are much less common than a lot of folk suppose.
Also the case that IME one can take in scenery better in relaxed
comfort.

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/

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

>An upright will do the job the too, but most serious upright
>touring bikes tend to put you in some degree of crouch for
>aerodynamics. While improving efficiency it gives you a default
>view of the tarmac a few meters in front of the bike: you have to
>make a conscious effort to look up to see around you. On a 'bent
>the natural default view is straight ahead, not ahead and down,

Great point Id never thought abt!!

Tell me.... what would you use on a bent tho.....
panniers or a trailer only?

IOW...aren't you really limited to just a trailer on a
bent?

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> Tell me.... what would you use on a bent tho.....
> panniers or a trailer only?
>
> IOW...aren't you really limited to just a trailer on a
> bent?

Very much depends on the model. If you look at
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tourdunord.htm you'll
see our touring 'bents loaded up with panniers. Mine takes 4, my
Other Half's only takes two but with Radical 'bent specific
panniers she can get a lot of gear in (those are "Mediums" at 55
litres the pair, "Large" are 70 litres the pair, but they only
really work in pairs).

So, obviously I use panniers... My bike is particularly good when
loaded because you can get the real weight between the wheels under
the rider, so handling is very little affected, but if you have to
mount everything behind you (which you will in many cases) then a
trailer will start to look like an increasingly good option. Again
the case that the bigger the load, the better a trailer is.

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/

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:29:49 -0500
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Tell me.... what would you use on a bent tho.....
> panniers or a trailer only?
>
> IOW...aren't you really limited to just a trailer on a
> bent?

Depends on the bent.

I use panniers every day on my Giro 20 as I commute to work and my
work clothes are in the panniers. I use a set of cheap Tiogas that
take about 40l the pair. I could put bigger normal ones on without
problems.

I could also add an underseat rack and put either front panniers on
that, or else the special recumbent ones that can carry a fair old
load.

If I was going touring I'd prefer a trike And probably tow a
trailer if I needed to add camping gear rather than have just a couple
of changes of clothes.

(I'd prefer the trike because they don't care how slow you go and I'm
terrible up hills...)

Zebee

 

[[email protected]]

Good points, Peter, thanks for posting.
However, if I had only had the courage to try a recumbent 30 years ago,
I'd have gotten one then. There is no reason to wait till anything
hurts to run a recumbent or trike. It's a very weird place to end up
and, these days, I don't bother with the evangelism; upright bicycle
riders just don't get it (anymore than PC users can understand why I
use Macintosh or chess players understand why I play go) so I've
stopped trying to explain it. "How's that thing on hills?" "I get
there. Wait for me at the top, I'll race you down the other side."

A recumbent is a lot of things but for me it's all about comfort; life
is about comfort these days. At the end of a long day's ride, I'm as
tired as anyone else on the tour but nothing on my body hurts.

New site you might try:

http://bicycletouring101.com/index.html


Peter Clinch wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> There is no question: the only way to see America by bike is feet
> >> first.
> >
> > How come? Can you explain? Just easier on 48 year old
> > body?
>
> An upright will do the job the too, but most serious upright
> touring bikes tend to put you in some degree of crouch for
> aerodynamics. While improving efficiency it gives you a default
> view of the tarmac a few meters in front of the bike: you have to
> make a conscious effort to look up to see around you. On a 'bent
> the natural default view is straight ahead, not ahead and down, so
> you'll /see/ America better. Unless there's a wall or hedge at the
> level where a wedgie rider can see over and you can't, of course,
> but IME those are much less common than a lot of folk suppose.
> Also the case that IME one can take in scenery better in relaxed
> comfort.
> Pete.