Re: Pedal Forward Bike

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <LNednVzueJ4mbZXanZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise
>>> would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to
>>> conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude
>>> "if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in
>>> the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to
>>> encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on
>>> bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them.
>>>
>>> The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people
>>> who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both
>>> feet on the ground while seated.
>>>
>>> As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet,
>>> but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design,
>>> quality and service they provide.
>>>
>> I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a
>> bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese
>> argument as you need to take people as you find them.
>>
>> I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but
>> then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable
>> on this bike.
>>
>> Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg
>> and perform poorly on hills or anywhere.
>
> I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands,
> and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances
> aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town.
>
> The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest
> rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km
> long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that.
>
>> I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes
>> some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are
>> good things.
>
> Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

The crank-forward bicycles have the advantage of being much more like a
"conventional" bicycle than a recumbent, while providing much of the
comfort advantages that a recumbent does to an inexperienced and/or
casual rider.

[1] For this day and age.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> ... we're back to the age-old
> question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
> recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
> plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
> claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?
>
> When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
> finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during
muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a
bicycle saddle.

In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
that.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help.

Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
"recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html

- Frank Krygowski

[Michael Press]

In article <5ptOi.18$or6.0@newsfe06.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
> >
> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> > .... Almost anybody of relatively
> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> > expensive bike.
>
> Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old
> question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
> recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
> plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
> claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?
>
> When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
> finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.
One does not only fit a bicycle to one's
dimensions, one develops the physique
to fit the bicycle. With enough wind
and muscle on a properly sized bicycle,
then a resounding Yes! The saddle is comfortable.
It is more than comfortable. It is a ride.

--
Michael Press

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 9, 7:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>
> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
> available?

Hmm. I know I shouldn't say this, but the promise that recumbents
"will sell" is, so far, largely unrealized.

Maybe it's the lack of seat choices that have prevented them from
becoming popular? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:51:37 -0500, DougC wrote:

> Who started this foolishness?
> I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing
> under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon".
> It's absolute idiocy.

It's not for supporting your entire weight upon, since you're pushing
down on the pedals. If you're working hard seated, I'd guess it takes no
more than a quarter, on average.

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:05:31 -0500, DougC wrote:

> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
> available?

By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-)

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 9, 4:51 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.
>
> Who started this foolishness?
> I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing
> under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon".
> It's absolute idiocy.
>
> I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world
> riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate
> differently.

Your lack of understanding of how a bicycle seat should be used is
likely the reason behind any lack of comfort you feel on upright
bicycles. The weight of the rider should properly be distributed
trhough the hands, feet, and rear, not just on the rear as many people
seem to think. It's not a tiny chair that you're supposed to sit fully
upon constantly with your full weight. It is closer to the truth to
say that the seat is something on which the rider props him or herself
up while standing on the pedals. Furthermore the rider should be light
enough on the saddle to change positions subtly and very often.

Give it a try.

Robert

[A Muzi]

-snip-
DougC wrote:
> Recumbents offer the riding comfort that "average people" desire
-snip-

Won't be the first time I was labeled 'below average'. And proud of it!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:23:39 -0500, DougC wrote:

> Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It
> might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way
> that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand
> US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would
> NOT try to ride a bicycle this way.

You make it sounds as though non-pros never push hard on the pedals -
that we're divided into pros and old ladies spinning along in the lowest
available gear! If you put any real effort into pedalling, you /will/
reduce the average pressure your arse puts on the saddle. It's inevitable.

> Additionally, it does not agree with current market offerings observed:
> the less weight placed on the seat, then the less reason for saddle
> springs (Brooks) and even LESS reason to be picky about saddles than
> about recumbent seats. And yet--most recumbents still only come with ONE
> seat that cannot easily be changed, and you place your full weight on a
> recumbent seat.

In fact, you surely place /more/ than your full weight on the seat,
considering the horizontal component of force, because you're bracing
yourself against its back to push the pedals.

> If upright bikes need an assortment of several hundred
> different seats to choose from

You're wildly overstating the problem, of course. Of the dozens of people I
ride with, the vast majority are happy with the saddle which came with
their bike, and when they wear out, buy replacements based on weight, price
and/or what their friends bought, and are perfectly happy with them. I can
think of only a couple of cases where they changed due to discomfort.

[Bob]

On Oct 9, 1:23 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It
> might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way
> that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand
> US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would
> NOT try to ride a bicycle this way.

You'd lose such a bet. Look around at the cyclists you see everyday.
Unless they are on a cruiser bike or a recumbent cycle, that is
*exactly* how they ride. Hey, maybe that explains why 'bents have
captured just 3% of the market! ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> I have also witnessed that a lot of people like the FEEL of my
> recumbents, but think that they "look wierd". I rode one to my job one
> afternoon and several people took turns riding it (or at least trying).

Your paranthetical aside exactly reflects my own experiences with
recumbents. I had a hard time keeping my balance on them, especially
those with below the seat steering. The ride just felt too darned
weird. I'm certain with time those problems would have resolved
themselves but for me it was a case of why bother? The only advantage
recumbents offered to me was the possibility I could hit higher speeds
on a level surface. Factored against the disadvantages- a small loss
in manueverabilty, needing more storage space, and price among others-
I decided to just pedal my uprights a little harder.
It's fine if you want to ride 'bents and extol their virtues. Just
don't paint them as the solution to the imaginary problem of the
horrible pain and agonizing suffering uprights inflict on their users.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Gary Young]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:50:00 -0500, DougC wrote:

> Paul Cassel wrote:
>>
>> I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
>> absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
>> frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
>> my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
>> hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
>> a comfort bike, I'd walk.
>> .....
>
> I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good
> for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize
> the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional
> /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders
> (who insist on sitting on their saddles...).
>
> It's my understanding that the Chinese manufacturers of these frames
> (produced and sold under many different brands) are limited by the
> tooling they have. The frame jigs have a built-in range of geometry and
> size adjustability, and the current crop of comfort bikes like Townies
> is the farthest they can go with what they have. The Giant Revive
> required totally-custom tooling to manufacture its frame, and we see
> that the cheapest model costs $700 USD. The cheapest RANS crank-forwards
> are around $1000 USD, and they come equipped with pretty meek components.
> ~

Are you suggesting that tooling costs are the reason foot-forward bikes
aren't more popular? Do you have a source for that? I have to say I'm
pretty skeptical. A frame jig is just a set of clamps to holds tubes at
set angles. Remember the Schwinn fat-tired chopper that was out a few
years ago? That had geometry about as laid back as possible and yet as I
recall could be had for $200 or so. I think it's the lack of popularity of
these bikes that makes them expensive, not the tooling costs.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <TcWOi.65$8O5.21@newsfe05.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Paul Cassel wrote:
> >
> > I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
> > absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
> > frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
> > my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
> > hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
> > a comfort bike, I'd walk.
> > .....
>
> I would agree that most "comfort" bikes like Townies aren't real good
> for much. They move the crank forward, but not nearly enough to realize
> the full benefits--that being, they still need to use a conventional
> /saddle/, which is the source of complaints of so many would-be riders
> (who insist on sitting on their saddles...).

Most riders who have ridden so little that saddles hurt them would also
be put off by the rather unusual handling of a recumbent. In particular,
the handling of 'bents is worst at low speeds, which is where, er, new
riders spend most of their time.

It's fair to say that there might be a group of non-riders for whom
typical bike saddles (or at least, the saddle on the bike they tried)
are not comfortable. I've been riding for a while, and have the saddle
style down to a science: I own five copies of a single Selle Italia
model (Nitrox). And yet, the stock saddle on my Pinarello was so
immediately and seriously...numbing...that I swapped it out after two
rides.

That said, recumbents bring their own flaws to the game, notably funky
handling. I know of an experienced rider, who, due to back problems,
found bliss with a 'bent. He also fell down at low speed in his first
two weeks of use, thanks to the odd low-speed handling.

The short version is this: most new riders are not likely to want a bike
that virtually requires being attached to the pedals for a successful
ride.

Whatever virtues a recumbent may have, inflicting the typical designs on
new cyclists verges on cruelty.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Michael Press]

In article <G2JOi.105$0x7.29@newsfe05.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.
>
> Who started this foolishness?
> I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing
> under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon".
> It's absolute idiocy.
>
> I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world
> riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate
> differently.
>
> > One does not only fit a bicycle to one's
> > dimensions, one develops the physique
> > to fit the bicycle.
>
> Your standards of consumer products is considerably lower than mine.

You do not like riding a drop handlebar bicycle. Others
have also addressed your assertions about riding a drop
handlebar bicycle. You apparently are not any good at it,
and so your rant against drop handlebar bicycles is ill
informed and feckless.

--
Michael Press

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 9, 12:23 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> Anyway--this "levitation" theory is ascribed as /racing/ technique. It
> might be the way that pro riders operate but it's simply not the way
> that typical people ride. I would be willing to bet anyone one thousand
> US dollars that of a sampling of 100 random people, at least 97% would
> NOT try to ride a bicycle this way.

Complete nonsense. That's how one rides a bike. I ride about 10000
miles each year plus a few thousand miles of singletrack trail on a
rigid fork bike, I don't use bike shorts, and I suffer zero
discomfort. I don't race. I simply distribute my weight over my hands,
feet, and rear; over rough sections I unweight the saddle and absorb
the bumps with my arms and legs -- nature's perfect suspension
components. But yes -- If I tried to use my bike seat like a tiny
chair to support my full weight at all times, then yes, there would be
discomfort. If that is your idea of riding a bike, then by all means
get a comically giant sprung saddle or ride a recumbent. You'll
certainly need it.

> What I would like to know is what idiotic charlatan came up with the
> idea that "a bicycle saddle is not for sitting on".
>
> It's positively ignorant, and deserves to be called as such.

It happens to be true.

> From the earliest records of the safety bicycle there are accounts of
> various types of ass-padding, as well as saddles using different kinds
> of suspension. If sitting on a bicycle saddle is wrong, then lots of
> people have been doing it wrong from the very start.

Yes, lots of people have had the wrong idea about this and continue
to. Witness the entire 'comfort bike' nightmare of people sitting bolt
upright on giant padded seats. Comfort is not on the agenda there I'll
tell you. And you are another example.

I'll suggest again, probably in vain, that you try riding a bike
properly before deciding it's inherently uncomfortable.

Robert

[Chalo]

DougC wrote:
>
> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
> available?

I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is,
generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally
they _don't_ sell.

It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost
nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more
conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know?

Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered
one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of
those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats
were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by
comparison!

http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm

Chalo

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 10, 6:05 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>
>
> I especially tend to mention them ...

.... or rather, evangelize for recumbents...

> ...when someone with "typical" saddle
> issues gets the three standard answers: try random different saddles,
> get a custom fitting, and my favorite failure--get used to the pain.
> They don't actually /say/ to "just get used to the pain", what they say
> is "maybe you just haven't tried riding on your saddle long enough", but
> it's admitting that there possibly isn't any solution, and you should
> just learn to tolerate the pain.

What would you say if a new rider told you "I did my longest ride ever
yesterday. I rode 15 miles, and for the first time ever, I climbed a
hill! Now my thighs are sore. So I'm giving up bicycling because of
the pain in my thighs."

Personally, I've heard all but the last sentence. People generally
understand that they must improve muscle tone to accommodate a new
activity, be it cycling, tennis, bowling, jogging, or whatever. Smart
people know that they may get a bit sore, but that the soreness is
part of the strengthening process.

The only real difference with a bike saddle is that one size does not
fit all, so saddles must be chosen with a little care. Given a
properly chosen upright saddle, one doesn't need to "tolerate the
pain" any longer than a golfer or gardener needs to tolerate the pains
from their hobbies.

> The bicycle saddles of today don't
> often look much different from each other, and often look quite similar
> to many that were available literally 100 years ago.

Yep. It's because the designs work.

That's true of the wheels today, too. Does your recumbent feature
square wheels? Or are you still using those archaic round ones, like
the wheels of the 1800s?

You retro-grouch!

- Frank Krygowski

[A Muzi]

> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> I find recumbent riders often like door-to-door bible salesmen in
>> their effort to convert people foolish enough to have ridden an
>> upright bicycle.

DougC wrote:
> Recumbents are generally agreed by knowledgeable people* to have a
> significant rider comfort advantage.

OK, so I'm below average and not a knowledgeable person. Whatever.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <zN1Pi.78$KS3.36@newsfe03.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't ridden one, but I think the first thing to go in typical
> > crank-forward designs is the ability to ride no-hands.
> >
>
> On the Fusion I can do it, but it requires a lot more speed than a
> conventional road or MTB does and it's still not as stable. The Dynamik
> and Zenetic, with their steeper head angles would probably do somewhat
> better at it.
>
> If, that is, it was actually /important/......

No-handing is not important per se. It's an easy benchmark for a
handling issue that crops up as recumbents get more and more laid back.

Note that on these relatively upright crank-forward designs, the
handling is already getting a bit more tetchy than on a DF bike, and the
aerodynamics are almost always worse than that of common DF bikes. So
they're slow and clumsy. An excellent choice for people who want a bike
they can flat-foot, though.

> What is the benefit of being able to ride no-handed? If a typical casual
> (non-competitive) rider goes on a 30-mile ride, how many miles do you
> think they are riding no-handed?

Not many. None of the riders I know no-hands for a break. They almost
always do it because they're changing jackets,* getting something
(usually a snack) out of a pocket, or just for a quick stretch.


> For that matter, I cannot ride my LWB recumbent no-handed real well
> either, unless I'm going at least 20 mph or so and even then it's
> sketchy--but then, there's not ever much reason to ride no-handed, since
> there's no hand pressure at all. Also,,, with the right handlebar setup,
> it's easy to ride a recumbent 5-10 or more miles non-stop while steering
> with only one hand...

As I've pointed out before, recumbents are wonderful bicycles for those
who need them. I keep bringing up my friend who changed to one due to
back problems, and each time I feel more like I'm using the line "some
of my best friends ride recumbents!"

But precious few need them, and for those who don't, they represent an
interesting set of compromises relative to the DF. First, they tend to
handle less pleasantly at low speed than upright bikes, with few
exceptions. Second, they tend to have worse aerodynamics than upright
bikes, until they get fairings or very...committed...designs, at which
point they fall prey to either scary crosswind vulnerabilities,
unusually bad low-speed handling, or both.

Compounding all these, they have specific issues for new riders,
including the near-necessity of clips or clipless on all but the least
recumbent versions.

In urban environments, low-speed handling issues and the inability to
easily mount small obstacles leave recumbents dead in the water. It's
just not their forte.

I summed this up previously by saying that the comfy ones were slow, and
the fast ones were sketchy.

Few riders need a bicycle that is extra comfy or extra fast.

*yeah, I ride with a bunch of fairly serious racers. No, I don't
recommend removing jackets no-handed on the fly as a normal bike skill.
But it's cool.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <mS%Oi.72$KS3.66@newsfe03.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Gary Young wrote:
> >
> > Are you suggesting that tooling costs are the reason foot-forward bikes
> > aren't more popular? Do you have a source for that?
>
> No.
> What I read online (from a non-authoritative source) is that the bikes
> like the Electra Townie are as radical as can be made without going to a
> custom frame manufacturing setup. Going to a custom frame tooling setup
> drastically adds to the price--as observed with the Giant Revive.
>
> > I have to say I'm
> > pretty skeptical. A frame jig is just a set of clamps to holds tubes at
> > set angles. Remember the Schwinn fat-tired chopper that was out a few
> > years ago? That had geometry about as laid back as possible and yet as I
> > recall could be had for $200 or so. I think it's the lack of popularity of
> > these bikes that makes them expensive, not the tooling costs.
>
> Yes--the kids Schwinn chopper was $197--but then again, the mighty
> Wal-Mart signed on to sell the Schwinn chopper bikes. Wal-Mart probably
> agreed to buy tens of thousands of them right off the bat, they don't do
> small deals. That instant volume probably did quite a bit to drive down
> the unit price.
> ~

Dear Doug:

And if you had some eggs, you could have ham and eggs!

If you had some ham,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 11, 1:00 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless
> I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly.
>
> (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents,
> but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm
> doing the best I can here-)

You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible
stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your
discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to
learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself.

In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter
along.

Robert

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <TKjPi.321$Z36.133@newsfe02.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > No-handing is not important per se. It's an easy benchmark for a
> > handling issue that crops up as recumbents get more and more laid back.
> >
> > Note that on these relatively upright crank-forward designs, the
> > handling is already getting a bit more tetchy than on a DF bike, and the
> > aerodynamics are almost always worse than that of common DF bikes. So
> > they're slow and clumsy. An excellent choice for people who want a bike
> > they can flat-foot, though.

> The purpose of the RANS bikes was not primarily having a flat-foot
> stance; the purpose was to come up with a frame geometry that allowed
> them to dispense with a conventional saddle and use the seat base of a
> recumbent. They had to move the pedals far forward to do that and the
> seat could be placed lower, and so "flat-footing" became possible--but
> it wasn't the original goal.

More classic recumbents achieve this same function, as well.

> When I was considering buying the Fusion, many people online (bentrider
> online and RANS own crankforward forum) who had tried lots of the
> comfort bikes tended to agree that the RANS bikes were considerably more
> performance-oriented than pretty much all the rest of the "comfort"
> bikes. Mine mostly gets used <25 mile rides but doing 50 or 100 mile
> rides wouldn't scare me much, it just wouldn't be quite as nice as on
> the recumbent.

sportier than the slowest bikes known to science is not a recommendation.

> The low speed handling mostly relates to recumbents being longer
> overall, and some practice helps a lot but doesn't guarantee you'll be
> able to weave a ~7ft recumbent through everything that you can get a
> ~5ft long road bike (with narrow handlebars) through {...and I dare say
> that not too many bicycling enthusiasts buy a bike for its low-speed
> handling anyway.....}.

Actually, the recumbent has another, subtler problem: they're too low.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure much of the handling
oddities can be traced to the low polar moment of inertia. If you listen
to tallbike riders, you'll hear of the opposite effect: if you can get
over the extra consequences of tipping over (falling off, really), those
bike have very friendly slow-speed handling.

> I kinda agree that the raked head angles of recumbents makes them steer
> poorly, and I am rather liking the idea of a LWB that uses a "standard"
> head angle with remote above-seat steering, but I don't know of any
> commercial examples. The only ones I have seen were under-seat steering
> such as the Longbikes Slipstream:
>
> http://www.longbikes.com/Slipstream.html
>
> I think that Lightfoot Cycles does above-seat remote steering (it's a
> trike option at least) but their LWB's already have raked head angles.

> > In urban environments, low-speed handling issues and the inability to
> > easily mount small obstacles leave recumbents dead in the water. It's
> > just not their forte.
>
> What obstacles exactly? In my country, you're supposed to ride bicycles
> in the /street/.

True enough. But let's take my (possibly personally biasing) completely
real-world example of my commute to work.

1) I ride out of my back yard, across 20 m of grass, which ends in a
short, sharp downslope to the sidewalk, which I cross and then enter the
roadway.

2) about 10 km of non-special road-riding we need not concern ourselves
with, except to note that I usually lane-split about 500m of backed-up
cars at the busiest intersection on my route. Oh, plus the 1.8 km of 10%
average grade.

3) I enter the underground parking lot at work by riding up a curb cut,
across a metre of bark mulch, and then through a side entrance that
includes passing through an open doorway. Then I roll my bike into the
office, drop my riding shoes off for my work shoes, and carry the bike
up one flight of stairs to the bike rack (it's a complicated layout;
don't try to make too many assumptions about the geometry of my office).

4) work all day. This would be roughly the same whether or not I had a
recumbent.

5) time for home. 1 km of substantial climbing, followed by a shortcut
through the city park, which involves a semi-busy MUP (I use the grass
when passing), from which the safest exit is to ride over 10 m of humped
grass, followed by a curb drop to roadway.

6) more riding. How do recumbents handle speed humps? I have four on
this section, and two more later.

7) quick descent, short climb, quick descent, 2-3 km of medium climb.
1-2 km of flat, then that same climb I did in the morning, only now it
is a fast descent where cars normally impede my speed.

8) to get home, I ride over the grass verge, across the sidewalk, and up
the short grass hump that takes me onto my lawn.

This isn't me trying to make my life hard for a recumbent. That's just
the route I ride to work, and it's about the easiest one I've plotted
after six years of trying.

When I worked at the alternate office last week, my route was much
simpler, except that the fastest entry to the office was over several
speed bumps on an ascending line, followed by a narrow wood ramp covered
with gritted paper for traction.

Oh yeah, and they tore up the road last week, so I was riding across
packed sand every day, too.

> > I summed this up previously by saying that the comfy ones were slow, and
> > the fast ones were sketchy.
> >
> > Few riders need a bicycle that is extra comfy or extra fast.
>
> As I have seen it--most all recumbents are more comfortable to ride than
> uprights; it's only a matter of if a particular recumbent is faster or
> slower, which depends on its aerodynamics, which is often related to how
> reclined the rider position is.

I'll take it as a given that few riders are likely to seek comfort and
choose sketchiness. That is, whatever the comfort issues, most
comfort-seeking riders (and really, I mean people who can ride a bike,
but cannot physically ride a df) are going to choose a "slow" design.

More to the point, on my bicycle, fatigue has always overcome me before
comfort.

> The advantage of being more comfortable is that one can stay on the bike
> longer and ride farther. Even if one is un-young, un-thin and
> un-in-shape-physically.

Yes, but most unfit people aren't going to appreciate the challenge of a
bike with worse handling than a DF bike. A lot of people quit
recreational riding because they can't handle the challenge of a DF
bike! I know, I wonder why their parents let them down, too, but there
it is.

Before you suggest it, an extra-heavy, extra-slow, extra-expensive trike
is not likely to drive these people to human-powered bliss. They'll just
jog, or jazzercise, or go back to the couch. Most people give up on most
fitness activities.

> Recumbents have a wider variety among types than upright bikes do, so
> making general statements is difficult. Among uprights--a racing road
> bike, a TT bike and a touring bike are all pretty much alike in
> geometry--but a BikeE, a Tour Easy and a NoCom are considerably
> different and can't easily be used for the same things.

Recumbents are, if I may generalize wildly, all specialty devices for
niche purposes (people with fused vertebrae, people wanting to set land
speed records).

Upright bikes are the sawzalls of human-powered travel, and they do
everything fairly well, and some things decisively better than any other
bike.

For a ride out into the countryside on roads where car traffic or
signals are not the defining factors, recumbents are lovely.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Chalo]

DougC wrote:
>
> There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St
> Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all,

Coincidence? Conspiracy?

No-- it's simply bad business to sell things that self-respecting
folks have already demonstrated they will not buy.

> I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't
> argue with anyone who has already not bought one.

I thought 'bents were a neat idea until I tried one (Infinity LWB).
Then I thought they were a quirky and iconoclastic idea until I spent
a vacation on a BikeE (because it was the only sufficiently tall
rental bike I could find). Now I know for sure that they are just a
bad idea. A very bad idea.

I've ridden choppers, assembled from chunks of other bikes with a
hacksaw and a hammer, that ride better and less treacherously than a
BikeE. Even on the occasional stretch of smooth, unbroken pavement,
where the likelihood of stopping the donut-sized front wheel dead in a
small pothole was insignificant, the bastard was just waiting for a
moment's lapse in my vigilance to corkscrew itself into the road,
taking me with it.

Though the BikeE was equipped with far more gear range than any bike I
owned at the time, it was a horrible ordeal to climb modest slopes
with, zigzagging and stalling where I'd have been able to ride up well
enough on a one-speed. And slow! Even given a long straight flat
smooth piece of road, it was a strenuous chore to carry a fraction of
the speed I could easily have cruised at on one of my own bikes. My
wife was constantly outrunning me on her rental hybrid, which she had
never done before.

I don't have to buy a 'bent to have my informed opinions of them. In
fact, it is only my experience with 'bents that insures I will never
pay to own one! (I would certainly take a free one for the purpose of
springing practical jokes on my friends.)

> The extra money in
> their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent
> the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the
> garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale.

The true test of these matters is to tape a single pea under the
saddle shell of a normal bike. If a person can't ride it even a
single mile without grievous discomfort, that proves beyond a doubt he
is a Real Princess, and thus he must use a recumbent for his forays
out from the castle.

Chalo

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 11, 2:52 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>
>
> Also--I greatly prefer the head-mounted rear-view mirrors, and I
> distinctly recall that these didn't work well on my drop-bar bikes,
> because mostly what the mirror showed me was my own shoulder. They work
> great on the recumbents however. Also on the Fusion too.
> ,,,,,,,
> For that matter: I consider effective rear-view mirrors to be /critical/
> to safe riding, and I don't remember /any/ good solutions for drop-bar
> road bikes. Helmet/eyeglass mirrors didn't work for the shoulder-view
> reason, and handlebar/stalk mounted mirrors vibrated too much. There's
> the one now that mounts centered on the frame behind the head tube, but
> it requires you to take your vision off the road ahead--so by my
> standards it fails also.

Sheesh. Doug, you really reach to find _any_ way of promoting
recumbents over uprights, no matter how implausible!

Many of us cyclists use eyeglass mirrors or helmet mirrors. Just like
our upright bikes and our conventional saddles, we do so because they
DO work.

You seem to have difficulty with all three. The best that can be said
about that is that they don't seem to work for _you_. In the case of
the eyeglass mirror, as with a saddle, it's likely a selection or
adjustment problem that you can be taught to solve. It's not a
fundamental problem with the design of the equipment.

And I don't consider a mirror to be "critical" for safe riding
anyway. Convenient? Yes. But if I lost my mirror halfway through a
ride, I certainly wouldn't call a cab!

Again: Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 11, 7:02 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 1:00 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>
> >> I wouldn't bother to argue the uprights vs. recumbents questions unless
> >> I had done extended riding on both. That would be just silly.
>
> >> (-at this point I've got ~15 yrs on uprights and only ~6 on recumbents,
> >> but I've gotten rid of all my uprights dammit--cut me some slack, I'm
> >> doing the best I can here-)
>
> > You already told us all we need to know about that. Your horrible
> > stone stiff ball-crunching anti-technique was the cause of your
> > discomfort on upright bikes. You ended up blaming your own failure to
> > learn how to ride properly on your equipment rather than yourself.
>
> > In this fashion the market for recumbent bicycles continues to sputter
> > along.
>
> > Robert
>
> Sometimes the better concept does not win as you'd expect.
>
> People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general
> use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand)
> because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are
> external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more
> maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they
> cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push
> them on customers.
>
> Most non-bicycle enthusiasts don't even know that such a thing as a
> 14-speed hub /exists/. So do they want one? Of course not, how could
> they? They have never heard of one and have never seen one, and
> most-certainly have never gotten a chance to test-ride one. And even if
> they managed to do all those things, the price tag would still put the
> thought out of most people's minds.
>
> -------
>
> So how do you explain this phenomenon?
> Is the Rohloff a market failure because it hasn't gained widespread
> acceptance? And are people who pay $1500 for a Rohloff hub doing so
> because they're too inept to understand how to work external gears, or
> is a Rohloff a technically-better solution that only a small number of
> people are willing to pay for?
> ~

You evaluate designs in a very, very simplistic way!

"People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful" is NOT
definitive proof that Rohloffs are superior to conventional drive
trains! It merely suggests that most purchasers approve of their own
purchase - but you see that phenomenon any time a Chevy guy and a Ford
guy drink beer at a bar.

Some people think internal gear hubs are interesting mechanically.
Some like the aesthetics. Some like the reduced maintenance.

But many people prefer the lighter weight, higher torque capacity,
gear-ratio customization, and (yes) conventionality of more
conventional drive trains. We've all heard of "superior"
unconventional designs that leave their owners with no maintenance
parts when their manufacturers go belly up. The "early adopter" crowd
doesn't care, but most people do.

And finally, you seem to think that it's unjust to consider the price
of a design when evaluating its benefits and detriments. That's just
weird! For almost all consumers, price is certainly a consideration,
and its often a very important one.

Theoretical benefits as touted by a few dedicated early adopters do
not necessarily validate an expensive design. If that were true,
you'd be reading this on a NeXT workstation.

Or watching Betamax.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bob]

On Oct 11, 6:02 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:

>
> People who have Rohloff hubs tend to say they're wonderful for general
> use, yet very few people own them (and VERY few shops keep them on hand)
> because of the steep price. Most bicycles sold in the US are
> external-gear {-which doesn't shift as easily and requires more
> maintenance-} but sells in far greater quantities plainly because they
> cost less to manufacture, and bike companies (and thus bike shops) push
> them on customers.
>

External gearing doesn't outsell internal gear hubs because it costs
less to manufacture. External outsells internal because it
accomplishes the same task as the internal geared hub at a fraction of
the price to the buyer. That is hardly a case of bike companies
"pushing" an externally geared bike on consumers, more like a case of
giving consumers what they want. The same applies to 'bents. BTW, if
one really wanted to increase the recumbent bikes' share of the
market, they'd build a child's model. "Get 'em early" is a very
effective marketing tool.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Michael Press]

In article <VckPi.323$Z36.114@newsfe02.lga>,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote:

> Chalo wrote:
> > DougC wrote:
> >> Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
> >> available?
> >
> > I think you are on to something here. Because the answer is,
> > generally they won't sell. We know this because, well... generally
> > they _don't_ sell.
> >
> > It's very difficult to assess the virtues of something that almost
> > nobody wants any part of. The glaring drawbacks are so much more
> > conspicuous than the subtle/imaginary benefits, you know?
> >
> > Everyone who rides a bike _could_ have bought a 'bent. Trek offered
> > one. Cannondale offered one for a number of years. But neither of
> > those companies offers one anymore. And it's not because the seats
> > were so comfortable that it made their other bikes suffer by
> > comparison!
> >
> > http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/recumbent-manufacturers-out-of-business/trek/trek.htm
> >
> > Chalo
> >
>
> Most of the people who ask me about the bikes I have now didn't know
> that such a type of bicycle even existed. A few have seen them on TV or
> in print magazines, but even most of those people have no idea where to
> get one. There's probably at least 75 bicycle shops in the metro St
> Louis area, but only two that sell recumbents at all, and many people
> are reluctant to buy anything so expensive and unusual online, if online
> sales are even an option.
>
> And most of the people new to bicycling (who are most interested in
> comfort) are also the most price-conscious, and the cheapest recumbent
> in the US still costs about six times what the cheapest adult bikes do.
>
> The Trek and Cannondale ones were not very good examples--they were
> rather expensive even by recumbent standards, and were never widely
> available. Probably the best effort to date (in the US) was when BikeE
> was around, they got their bikes into a lot of regular bike shops--but
> once again, the $1100 price tag was tough to swallow when "normal" bikes
> could be had for $200.
>
> I test-rode a BikeE about 16 years ago and LOVED it, but the price was
> off-putting. I put up with normal road bikes for another ten years
> before buying a recumbent. Looking back, I should've bought the BikeE in
> the first place. I can ride a recumbent farther now and with less pain
> than I could ride an upright back then--and I was 16 years younger and
> ~100 lbs lighter back then.
>
> ------
>
> I'll argue why recumbents are generally better all day long, but I won't
> argue with anyone who has already not bought one. The extra money in
> their wallet they saved by buying a cheaper "normal" bike won't prevent
> the pain in their rears, and they'll just end up hanging the bike in the
> garage and using it to collect cobwebs until the next yard sale. And
> then on some warm spring day, they'll wander back into the bike shop,
> and the person working there will SWEAR that "bicycles overall are lots
> more comfortable now!"...
> ~

The quotes around `normal' is a good touch.

People who buy a bicycle because they think it will
help them are deluding themselves, and the bicycle
gathers dust. Some children get up on the bicycle for
the first time, and immediately see the advantages. It
offers an almost free ride.

--
Michael Press

[Chalo]

DougC wrote:
>
> One great advantage is that on the recumbent, my eyesight is naturally
> facing /forward/, not down at my front wheel. Another great advantage is
> that I can use my brakes as hard as I wish, without worrying about
> tipping over forward.

My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong
rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long
before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been
reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the
compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the
fronts of 'bents. (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist
group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin
the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a
brake.)

I think that skidding the front of a two-wheeler is a bigger potential
problem than tipping up, especially when braking into a turn. Hard
experience on motorcycles has taught me that rear wheel sideslip is
often recoverable, but front wheel sideslip usually leads to an
instant crash.

Chalo

[Chalo]

DougC wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > My experience with choppers has showed me that a bike with a strong
> > rear weigh bias can have problems with _skidding_ the front tire long
> > before the braking effort that would tip up a normal bike has been
> > reached. I'd imagine that this problem would be exaggerated by the
> > compromised traction of miniature tires that are often used on the
> > fronts of 'bents.
>
> Choppers are fundamentally different than most recumbents, in that
> choppers use foolishly-elongated fork blades that end up flexy. That
> leads to a number of problems that essentially cannot be fixed without
> shortening the forks.

Poor front wheel traction is not one of those problems, though. Fork
flex is in effect a form of suspension that improves traction rather
than diminishing it.

> > (Some of the 'bent riders on the Yahoo power-assist
> > group have mentioned that their hub motors can break traction and spin
> > the front wheel, at motor torques that would be very feeble for a
> > brake.)
>
> Many recumbents do have a rearward weight distribution--but accelerating
> takes weight off the front wheel, where braking places more weight
> temporarily on it.

Weight shift under braking certainly improves rear wheel traction, but
the acceleration afforded by an electric hub motor is not strong.

> And yes--you can put a decent front hub motor on an
> upright bike, and a good battery will spin that wheel too. Ever notice
> that dragsters traditionally have rear-wheel-drive?

My e-bike has the strongest direct drive hub motor I could find
(around 50 newton-meters and 1000 watts at 36V). The bike has a
strong rear weight bias because it is very tall, but it has normal
length chainstays. But the only wheelspin I have observed has
occurred while climbing a very steep hill, on wet brick pavement, and
then only along with my strongest pedal strokes as I muscled the bike
up the hill. I am sure that reduced tractive effort at the perimeter
of the >28" wheel (versus a 16" or 20" wheel) and my ability to shift
my own weight forward helped make the difference between my experience
and that of the 'bent riders on Yahoo power-assist who report wheel
slip. To my knowledge, none of the 'bent guys run such a large front
hub motor, because its ~10" diameter is a poor match for a small
wheel.

> I've not had the problem of a skidding front wheel during any stops,
> unless I was riding in gravel. If I squeeze the (avid bb5 160mm) brakes
> both as hard as possible on clean pavement (if I am holding a straight
> lie or turning) the bike just stops really fast. Both tires are rated
> for 100 PSI but the recumbent carries about 66% of the weigh on the rear
> tire, and so no matter what set of tires I am using, my front tire is
> (/properly/) inflated to around half the pressure that the rear is.

That's a good point. Tire inflation pressure probably accounts for at
least some of the power-assist guys' traction issues. Most of the
folks on that group have a semi-naïve fixation on extreme tire
pressures for presumed maximum efficiency.

> I have never ever been able to lock up the front tire on clean pavement
> nor have I been able to lift the rear tire,

Then your brake isn't as strong as it could be, because one or the
other will inevitably occur in the presence of sufficient braking
torque. Tip-up is easier to recover through rider feedback than front
wheel slip is, though.

Chalo

[Chalo]

Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> > bicycle design.
>
> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

[Bob]

On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:

> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
> accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
*anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
bikes.
If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes:
> Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >
>> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
>> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
>> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
>> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
>> > bicycle design.
>>
>> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
>> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
>> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
>> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
>> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
>> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.


cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[smokeystrodtman@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 8:20 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> > > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> > > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> > > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> > > bicycle design.
>
> > The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> > older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> > People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> > have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> > soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> > with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.
>
> Chalo

I must respectfully disagree (and I've never ridden anything but
conventional bikes myself and probably never well). I think this part
of your statement is key:

(snipped) Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability (snip)

Some people aren't of either/or normal size or physical ability. For
riders of shorter stature it's often an issue of whether or not they
can get both feet on the ground when stopped. The feet forward bikes
make it easier for them to do this, making it more likely that they
will ride. I'm sure they will remain a niche market, but there will be
some who find they suit their needs.

Smokey

[Paul Cassel]

Chalo wrote:

>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.
>
Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.

I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
a comfort bike, I'd walk.

OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.

The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
(my read).

-paul

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
>>> who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
>>> The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
>>> solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
>>> bicycle design.
>> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
>> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
>> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
>> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
>> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
>> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.

I gave up distance riding on uprights due to discomfort. For the few
years when I had better health and many fewer demands on my time, I rode
my recumbents thousands of miles per year.

Chalo's 99.9 percentile mass does not necessarily mean that he will have
more discomfort problems. As a counter example, my feet hurt from
standing still much sooner than most other peoples, even when I was in
high school and was 1.78 meters (5'10") tall with a mass of 55 kilograms
(120 pounds).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes:
> > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
> >>
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> >> > bicycle design.
> >>
> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
> >
> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
> >
> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> > expensive bike.
>
> Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
> get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
> instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
> I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
> Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
> low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Tom Keats]

In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:
> In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
>> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
>> >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
>> >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
>> >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
>> >> > bicycle design.
>> >>
>> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
>> >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
>> >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
>> >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
>> >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
>> >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>> >
>> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
>> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
>> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
>> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
>> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>> >
>> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
>> > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
>> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
>> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
>> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
>> > expensive bike.
>>
>> Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
>> get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
>> instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
>> I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
>> Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
>> low gear.
>
> No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
> these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

> The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
> which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
> amount of leg extension to the pedals.
>
> You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
> flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
> attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).
>
> It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
> bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
> cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
> relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
> helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
> psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
> a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

> At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
> tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[r15757@aol.com]

On Oct 7, 10:26 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

> It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
> stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
> the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
> balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
> stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
> that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
> network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
> realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
> nailed down to the saddle.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis-
apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it
should be used.

Robert

R.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:
> > In article <de2cef.sd1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1191806428.940340.55880@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> >> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> >> >> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> >> >> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of
> >> >> > conventional
> >> >> > bicycle design.
> >> >>
> >> >> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> >> >> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> >> >> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> >> >> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> >> >> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> >> >> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> >> > to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> >> > it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> >> > thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> >> > might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
> >> >
> >> > I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> >> > bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> >> > normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> >> > regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> >> > lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> >> > expensive bike.
> >>
> >> Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
> >> get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
> >> instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
> >> I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
> >> Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
> >> low gear.
> >
> > No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
> > these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.
>
> I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
> /seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
> speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.
>
> > The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
> > which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
> > amount of leg extension to the pedals.
> >
> > You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
> > flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
> > attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).
> >
> > It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
> > bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
> > cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
> > relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
> > helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
> > psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
> > a foot-forward bike.
>
> Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.
>
> It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
> stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
> the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
> balance to keep a bike upright while awheel

....well...that was a problem, too.

> > At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
> > tandem I bought.
>
> One of those half-mixte thingies?

Nooo. Rather weirder than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/

Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
bottle-gen light set.

The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
do that for two people.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Pat]

>
>> Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.
>
>> It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
>> stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
>> the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
>> balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
>> stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
>> that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
>> network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
>> realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
>> nailed down to the saddle.
>
> Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis-
> apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it
> should be used.
>
> Robert

When my dental hygienist found out that I was a cyclist, she said she'd like
to get a bike. She hadn't ridden since childhood, though, and definitely
didn't want a "10 speed racing bike" and remembered that she used to be able
to put her feet flat on the ground when stopped, so she'd like that feature
as well. And, she didn't want to buy unusual clothes, and she didn't want
people to "look at" her, etc. etc. This is the type of person that buys the
seat forward bikes--grownups who are afraid of standing out from the crowd
or who haven't ridden since they were 10 years old.

Pat in TX

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>,
>> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
>>> tandem I bought.
>> One of those half-mixte thingies?
>
> Nooo. Rather weirder than that.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/
>
> Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
> reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
> bottle-gen light set.
>
> The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
> manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
> do that for two people.

Funky but cool.

Any issues with excessive frame flexure?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
>> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
>> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
>> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
>> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>>
>> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
>> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
>> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
>> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
>> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
>> expensive bike.
>>
> Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.
>
> I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
> absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
> frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
> my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
> hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
> a comfort bike, I'd walk.
>
> OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
> a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
> ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
> putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.
>
> The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
> prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
> prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
> (my read).

Damn it - now I am considering going to my local RANS dealer to try one
of these crank-forward bikes for casual riding. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom Keats]

In article <1191873214.596011.250200@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> writes:
> On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>
>> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
>> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
>> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
>> accommodate these people.
>
> Who are these "elitists"

City Councils who kow-tow to motorheaded
Business Improvement Associations, and
cringingly & handwringingly heed their whinings
about how anything that might impede motorized
traffic will adversely affect The Economy.

> and what accommodations are they refusing to
> make?

Anything which allows non-driving, local traffic to
freely move about, to the supposed detriment of
drivers who'd rather, on their suburban commutes,
just shoot through your city without stopping anyway.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Officer Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>
>> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
>> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
>> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
>> accommodate these people.
>
> Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
> make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
> encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
> *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
> certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
> bikes.
> If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
> accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
> you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
> attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
> greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
besides cycling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>> ... we're back to the age-old
>> question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
>> recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
>> plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
>> claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?
>>
>> When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
>> finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.
>
> Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during
> muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a
> bicycle saddle.
>
> In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
> is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
> style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
> properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
> that.
>
> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help.
>
> Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
> "recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
> how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)
>
> http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785
>
> http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html

"Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off
the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite
some time.

The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be
excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few
hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle.

Not at all comparable, and those without experience should not try to
equate the two.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <470abc26$0$26381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <9ibcef.nm1.ln@vcn.bc.ca>,
> > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <rcousine-2330C6.20412407102007@news.telus.net>,
> >> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> writes:

> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/
> >
> > Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
> > reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
> > bottle-gen light set.
> >
> > The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
> > manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
> > do that for two people.
>
> Funky but cool.
>
> Any issues with excessive frame flexure?

Not at the speeds we ride. The head tube and headset seem to be coping
with some pretty mighty loads, but the rest of the frame is braced, and
it's about as solid as you could expect from a semi-folding 20"-wheeled
tandem. So far, this has been strictly an around-the-neighbourhood
solution, and even that only after I changed the stock rear cog for a
somewhat larger one. The original gearing was comically high for a
sluggish tandem.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Mike Kruger]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
> be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
> the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
> besides cycling.
>
On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders,
ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes,
steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc.

You post it, somebody will hate it.

[Bob]

On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
> Officer Bob Hunt wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
> >> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
> >> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
> >> accommodate these people.
>
> > Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
> > make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
> > encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
> > *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
> > certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
> > bikes.
> > If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
> > accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
> > you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
> > attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
> > greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)
>
> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.
>
> On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
> be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
> the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
> besides cycling.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't usually frequent bike shops aimed solely at racing types.
Maybe that attitude is more common in those shops but then, why would
anyone expect otherwise? They are simply geared toward their target
market just as any successful business must. Do you label your LBS
"elitist" because they don't seem to care about how often you change
the oil in your car or your local garage for not stocking 700x23
tires? Face it- neither is considering you "unworthy". Your complaint
could be fairly summarized as wanting all those round holes adapt to
your square peg. Sorry, neither business nor life in general works
like that.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[DennisTheBald]

> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

Anyone that hauls their bike around on the back of their motor vehicle
to get to a club right has nothing to feel elitist about, no matter
how fast they ride it when they get there.

Real cycling doesn't include recreational pursuits, and racing is
fundamentally entertainment. No matter how fast you go, no matter how
much money is in the purse it's just for fun. Brining home the
groceries is the real deal and all you folks wearing the funny shirts
with the pockets on the tail are a bunch of posers and wannabees.

After mama broke her neck skiing she hasn't been able to ride a bike
with drop bars, and hybrids have felt clunky to her. Her new Rans
CRANK forward Zenetic is just right. I think I may get one too. I'm
tired of not being able to pop the front wheel up over a curb.

[Michael Press]

In article
<470abdae$0$26497$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:

> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

I have encountered attitude in clothes shops,
car dealers, restaurants, and bars. _This_
is how you rip the facade off the seamy world
of upright bicycles? That dog won't hunt.

--
Michael Press

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com> wrote:
> Bob Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
>> make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
>> encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
>> *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
>> certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
>> bikes.
>
> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.

Eh, I consider any of those types of poseurs who don't own a cargo or
grocery bike not worth my time to sneer at. [0]

> On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
> be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
> the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
> besides cycling.

On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone can be
comfortable on a conventional upright at all. With the suggestion that
they ride a recumbent because anyone who rides an upwrong is an
addlepated fool and part of the international bicycle dealers
conspiracy. [1]

[0] Insert jocular emoticon here. I'm mostly joking. Mostly.

[1] The preceeding paragraph is not actually targeted at you. It's
actually targeted at DougC. Before I ran into his particular breed of
recumbent bigotry I *was* really interested in recumbents. After that,
not so much. I've recently started to become somewhat interested again
after trying out a clubmate's trike (it's a fun little thing). It looks
like he might end up buying a DF bike to replace it though. [2]

[2] Not for comfort issues, but rather for the fact that he's broken
four trike frames and is getting tired of the hassle.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
From the UML (User Mode Linux) anouncement:
Fixed a bug with lots of zombies causing a UML panic.
Now UML is much braver, it doesn't panic even if there
are lots of zombies all over the place!
Technology is funny sometimes, isn't it?

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 8, 8:44 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785
>
> >http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html
>
> "Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off
> the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite
> some time.
>
> The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be
> excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few
> hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle.

I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating"
pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very
rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even
if it's a bad decision.

For "excruciating," one might have to use a "Real Man" saddle like
this http://sheldonbrown.com/real-man.html on a century ride about
one week after beginning cycling.

I think most people with saddle complaints are probably beginners, and
are having problems because their salesperson (i.e. the kid at Wal-
Mart) didn't explain that a saddle must fit the rider and the intended
use.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bob]

On Oct 8, 9:42 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders,
> ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes,
> steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc.
>
> You post it, somebody will hate it.

100% correct. I'm sure there are Usenet users right now that are
composing posts claiming that war is a positive good, alcoholism
actually increases longevity and productivity, Shimano is better than
Campy, and other such nonsensical beliefs. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Sherman]

Officer Bob Hunt wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>> Officer Bob Hunt wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 1:18 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>>>> We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
>>>> public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
>>>> disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
>>>> accommodate these people.
>>> Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
>>> make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
>>> encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
>>> *anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
>>> certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
>>> bikes.
>>> If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
>>> accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
>>> you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
>>> attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
>>> greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)
>> I have encountered enough attitude in bike shops to know that there is a
>> considerable element that considers anyone who is not a racer or at
>> least a "serious" club rider to be unworthy.
>>
>> On Usenet we have those who disparage the notion that anyone could not
>> be comfortable on a conventional upright through "proper fitting" with
>> the suggestion that those who can not should find another activity
>> besides cycling.
>>
>
> I don't usually frequent bike shops aimed solely at racing types.
> Maybe that attitude is more common in those shops but then, why would
> anyone expect otherwise? They are simply geared toward their target
> market just as any successful business must. Do you label your LBS
> "elitist" because they don't seem to care about how often you change
> the oil in your car or your local garage for not stocking 700x23
> tires? Face it- neither is considering you "unworthy". Your complaint
> could be fairly summarized as wanting all those round holes adapt to
> your square peg. Sorry, neither business nor life in general works
> like that.

I have visited shops where no one wanted to discuss the bicycles sitting
on the floor for sale, unless they were road or mountain bikes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[Tom Sherman]

Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote:
> ...
> A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.
> One does not only fit a bicycle to one's
> dimensions, one develops the physique
> to fit the bicycle. With enough wind
> and muscle on a properly sized bicycle,
> then a resounding Yes! The saddle is comfortable.
> It is more than comfortable. It is a ride.

How do you get the newbies to stick with it that long, if the initial
experiences are unpleasant?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

[Paul Cassel]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating"
> pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very
> rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even
> if it's a bad decision.
>

I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only
a few miles. I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me
$115 and also were very tight. In my case, the pants look ok but many
newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass.
This was NOT a fun time.

When I took a friend down to REI to buy a bike (her choice of stores)
she ended up with a decent bike. I insisted she buy bicycle pants. She
wouldn't come out of the dressing room with them. Instead, she insisted
I come in. She didn't buy them. She gave up bicycling due to comfort