recumbent video

[ryancycles@comcast.net]

Recumbent video
This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
ever was, I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
Daedalus project engineers.

**** Ryan

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk

[Edward Dolan]

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:4759adc7$0$7551$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...

[newsgroups restored]

> newsgroups trimmed.
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote
>
> Perhaps because I don't ride with RealCyclists(tm), or maybe
> because they're so high and fast when pass without seeing me,
> I hardly ever hear this sort of dogma from other riders.
>
>
>> ryancycles wrote:
>>> They don't go up hills.
>
> Then why am I not stuck in a valley?

They go up hills, but slowly and badly.

>>> They are too heavy.
>
> Compared to what? My self-sustained touring setup is within
> 5% or less of a similarly equipped upright touring bike. My
> "utility recumbent" is not unreasonably heavier than many
> upright "beater/errand" bikes wit fenders and baskets. My
> road recumbent is not an ultralight, either, but the 4-7 pounds
> difference for a similarly priced upright road bike is insignificant
> compared to the spare tire I'm (and even many upright cyclists)
> are carrying in body weight!

Almost all bicycles are going to weigh around 30 pounds. When they weigh
less than that you are paying for it through the nose.

>>> They are too low to the ground.
>>> "that thing's so low, you're invisible!"
>
> Oh. Have you seen my six foot rabbit named Harvey, too? %^)

Low trikes can be quite dangerous. Any fool with some common sense knows
that much.

>>> They're slow.
>
> Maybe with me on it! But not with one of the many
> recumbent bicycle speed world record holders.

You will work much harder to be fast on a recumbent than you will on an
upright.

>>> Real men ride REAL bicycles!
>
> With such potential personal problems proximate to their
> upright bike seats, it's perhaps particularly appropriate that
> they view their bike choice as proof of manhood... %^P

Jon sure writes funny, but he is never funny. Very strange!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag2ml3t1m7lo5qrt3r5hp77dge6jderra6@4ax.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:

> ""A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.""

Here was the complete paragraph:

>> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference
>> here and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a
>> $2000. Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.

> That's according to Edward Dolan who seems to be a self-appointed
> "expert" on everything. I am so glad that I plonked him a long time
> ago.
>
> To think that there is little difference in those bikes is ludicrous.
> Take a look at the components, weld lines and just about everything
> else. The only advantage is....when they break down you simply toss
> them in a trash can and go get another one.

Nope, the BASIC DESIGN (as stated above) is the same. Harry of Lincoln,
Nebraska is a scoundrel which he proved by selectively quoting a single
sentence out of context. I shall henceforth treat him with the contempt that
he has earned.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@butthertz.com> wrote in message
news:B4CdnUKXEME5wcDanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:5s4bn9F17g34tU1@mid.individual.net...
>> tam wrote:
>>
>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>
>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
> [....]
>>
>
> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
> millions [why not billions and billions] of serious cyclists worldwide
> ride uprights without discomfort.

Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is of course NEVER correct about anything.
How could he be? He is a Medical Physics IT Officer, whatever the hell that
is!

The fact is that no one in the entire history of the universe has EVER been
comfortable on an upright bike, at least not for more than 15 minutes. This
of course is proof positive of just how amazingly stupid everyone is. I
don't know about you, but my intelligence is insulted when I am doing
something that makes me uncomfortable and I don't take steps to correct it.

> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to understand
> that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable based on any of
> several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search on "recumbent
> butt" he might also be forced to consider that some "serious" cyclists
> find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or arse if you prefer.

If you are dumb enough not to be able get your seat dialed in for comfort on
a recumbent, then Hell Bells, you are too dumb to be riding any kind of
bicycle, let alone a recumbent. I suppose you can't get your easy chair at
home comfy either. How about your bed, you moronic imbecile!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@bikefit.com> wrote in message
news:yNSdnSNPLcoOIMDanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "tam" <tpsc12248@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:56h7j.26536$kt3.24185@fe3.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>
>> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
>> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
>> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride the
>> word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>> been reached yet.
>> Tam
>
> Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
> limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a properly
> fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit bolt upright
> on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly distributed and supported
> primarily by your arms and legs.

Most folks do not have much strength in their arms, especially women.
Further, in order to support your body in the drop bar position you also
must have sufficient strength in your abdomen, your back, your shoulders and
your neck. Again, most folks do not have this requisite strength.

The saddle should serve more as a perch or
> support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle
> if you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than
> neighborhood riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your
> weight and serve as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need to
> be properly sized to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.

Yet everybody sits on the saddle because they can't support themselves with
their arms and legs for very long. Really, only professional racers can ride
the road bike the way it was designed to be ridden. And they have to train
like hell in order to be able to do it.

> As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the bones
> of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of them I've
> seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted. Growth spurts
> and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper fit and comfort
> difficult. I wonder it this could have been your problem.

Kids are never on bikes for more than a few minutes at a time and could care
less about fit and comfort. Very funny that you do not know this!

> I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
> geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that discussion
> for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.

There is a single best "ideal" design for a recumbent just as there is for a
road bike for racers and a MTB for everyone else who is not a racer. Very
funny that you do not know this!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@crazyed.com> wrote in message
news:I4WdneKvKfY1UMDanZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:N7adnbSVm7VEIsDanZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>> "Wilson Warmouth" <ww@butthertz.com> wrote in message
>> news:B4CdnUKXEME5wcDanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>
>>> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:5s4bn9F17g34tU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> tam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>>>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>>>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
>>> [....]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
>>> millions [why not billions and billions] of serious cyclists worldwide
>>> ride uprights without discomfort.
>>
>> Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is of course NEVER correct about
>> anything. How could he be? He is a Medical Physics IT Officer, whatever
>> the hell that is!
>
> I get the feeling you really don't want to know.

I will never look it up, not even if Hell freezes over. He has got to tell
me himself. This he refuses to do. I think he is either a janitor or a
nurse's aid at Ninewells Hospital and knows more about mops and bedpans than
he does anything about medical physics.

>> The fact is that no one in the entire history of the universe has EVER
>> been comfortable on an upright bike, at least not for more than 15
>> minutes. This of course is proof positive of just how amazingly stupid
>> everyone is. I don't know about you, but my intelligence is insulted
>> when I am doing something that makes me uncomfortable and I don't take
>> steps to correct it.
>
> Whatever.
>
>
>>> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to
>>> understand that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable
>>> based on any of several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search
>>> on "recumbent butt" he might also be forced to consider that some
>>> "serious" cyclists find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or arse if
>>> you prefer.
>>
>> If you are dumb enough not to be able get your seat dialed in for comfort
>> on a recumbent, then Hell Bells, you are too dumb to be riding any kind
>> of bicycle, let alone a recumbent. I suppose you can't get your easy
>> chair at home comfy either. How about your bed, you moronic imbecile!
>
>
> Elementary Mr. Dolan. It's all a matter of proper fit. Even moronic
> imbeciles know that.

See my reply also in this thread to your spiel (right out of the old
Bicycling Magazine) on how uprights are to be ridden. Hells Bells, you can
be fitted perfectly and you can ride perfectly but unless you are of Tour de
France caliber, it will not make any difference. You are doomed to be
uncomfortable on an upright - sooner or later. Thus spake Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@crazyed.com> wrote in message
news:kfidneeoZPKflcPanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:TJOdnRop9aF4V8DanZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>> "Wilson Warmouth" <ww@bikefit.com> wrote in message
>> news:yNSdnSNPLcoOIMDanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>
>>> "tam" <tpsc12248@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:56h7j.26536$kt3.24185@fe3.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>>>
>>>> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
>>>> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
>>>> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride
>>>> the word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
>>>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>>>> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>>>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>>>> been reached yet.
>>>> Tam
>>>
>>> Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
>>> limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a
>>> properly fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit
>>> bolt upright on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly
>>> distributed and supported primarily by your arms and legs.
>>
>> Most folks do not have much strength in their arms, especially women.
>> Further, in order to support your body in the drop bar position you also
>> must have sufficient strength in your abdomen, your back, your shoulders
>> and your neck. Again, most folks do not have this requisite strength.
>
> Well we can agree here. Especially when you say "most folks" because I'm
> not talking about "most folks". I'm talking about "serious" riders which
> to me means men, women, and children who ride on a regular basis, perhaps
> daily in good weather, maybe with a club on the weekends, along with a
> couple of century rides now and then. Throw in a week long tour or a
> cross state ride for good measure. This pretty much described my riding
> up until a while back when I seem to have decided I'd rather write about
> riding than actually do it. [I don't ride daily or club ride now - but
> what riding I do I still split time between uprights and recumbents]
> People, men or women, who ride seriously are fit to some degree simply
> because they do it. There are many, many people who do this and of those
> I've known only a few of them have ever been in an organized bicycle race.
> None have been professional bike racers.

You have made my points for me better than I could have myself. You have got
to train, or else ride your bike a lot (which is the same thing), in order
to be able to ride at all in comfort. This will exclude everybody except for
the few freaks ("serious riders")who are really into cycling.

> So along with a proper fit you do need to do some training if you want to
> ride long distances. This would be true for upright or recumbent riding.
> But if you've convinced youself that it can't be done in comfort on an
> upright then that is your truth. It isn't my truth. Nor is it the truth
> of multitudes of others.

You do not need to train at all in order to ride a recumbent long distance
and to be perfectly comfortable doing so as long as you have some minimal
cardiovasular fitness. I am your original wimp and I could never do a cross
state bike ride on an upright, but I can easily do it on a recumbent.

>> The saddle should serve more as a perch or
>>> support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle
>>> if you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than
>>> neighborhood riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your
>>> weight and serve as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need
>>> to be properly sized to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.
>>
>> Yet everybody sits on the saddle because they can't support themselves
>> with their arms and legs for very long. Really, only professional racers
>> can ride the road bike the way it was designed to be ridden. And they
>> have to train like hell in order to be able to do it.
>
> See previous response.
>
>
>>
>>> As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the
>>> bones of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of
>>> them I've seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted.
>>> Growth spurts and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper
>>> fit and comfort difficult. I wonder it this could have been your
>>> problem.
>>
>> Kids are never on bikes for more than a few minutes at a time and could
>> care less about fit and comfort. Very funny that you do not know this!
>
>
> Well now if they are riding ill fitting bikes it might follow that they
> would only want to ride them for a short time. Seems to me that more or
> less proves the point. Very funny you don't get this!

I rode bikes all though my childhood in connection with getting around town
and in connection with my newspaper routes. I don't believe I ever once
thought about fit or comfort and I don't know of any other kid that ever did
either. Kids ride bikes stop and go, never continuously for more than 5
minutes at a time.

>>> I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
>>> geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that
>>> discussion for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.
>>
>> There is a single best "ideal" design for a recumbent just as there is
>> for a road bike for racers and a MTB for everyone else who is not a
>> racer. Very funny that you do not know this!
>>
>
> Well Great Saint, it's good to hear that there is single best "ideal"
> design for a recumbent. There's no design consensus among recumbent
> riders or the recumbent industry. We are still wayfaring seekers of that
> Holy Recumbent Grail.

Everybody in the world is too stupid to know their ass from a hole in the
ground. How do you expect them to know anything about bicycles - of all
things!

Tom Sherman of ARBR occasionally says some sensible things about bicycles,
but he has gone astray on short wheelbase and now thinks low racers are the
cat's pajamas. He could not be more wrong of course, but maybe he is having
some fun on them, so I won't begrudge him his second childhood.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5s7191F17s3fsU1@mid.individual.net...
> tam wrote:
>
>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>> more
>> comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>
> Well, I find my touring 'bent is more comfortable than my Brompton
> folder or my 8 Freight cargo bike or my MTB, but there's more to
> selecting a bike than absolute comfort: as long as the bike is
> comfortable *enough* for the job it has to do other functional aspects
> can easily trump it. If I'll be doing 10 miles off-road through the
> Cairngorms on rough landy tracks to get to the start of a walk I'll take
> the MTB: it won't be outrageously comfy but it will be okay and I'll get
> where I want to be a great deal quicker and technially more easily than
> if I take my 'bent tourer.

Peter Clinch likes to cover all the bases. Consequently, he ends up never
saying anything worth listening to.

>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>> been
>> reached yet.
>
> There is no such thing, exactly as is the case for uprights. A racer
> has a very different geometry to a Dutch roadster because they have very
> different functional purposes, and you try the geometry of one for the
> function of the other and it is found wanting.

They are the same, a diamond frame with a saddle that you sit on in an
upright position. The differences are not worth mentioning.

The geometry of HP Vel's
> Streetmachine and Spirit are very different. They are both very comfy
> but in different ways, with the Spirit more /immediately/ comfortable
> but the Streetmachine better over the course of 50 miles, thanks to
> better aerodynamics allowing you to do it quicker and more support for
> your back spreading your weight more. Which is "more comfortable"?
> Well, are you going to do 50 miles or 5? because each has a different
> answer as the bikes are designed to suit particular purposes, the Spirit
> for shorter trips and the Streetmachine for longer ones.

Typical Peter Clinch gobbledygook. You listen to this guy and you will
become permanently disoriented about everything under the sun. I wonder if
he was born this way or did he have to work at it?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@jibeloo.com> wrote in message
news:0OadnQk8HvkyVsPanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e4htl3dsk2rgn6goqtsbmjji2soporkso8@4ax.com...
>
>> Yes Wilson I would agree wholeheartedly!!!!! SOME training is more
>> than needed. I thought I could just jump on my trike and ride for
>> miles. Second day I had it I put 40 miles on it. MAN....was I worn
>> out and had a few sore muscles.
>>
>> YES a bit of training and/or riding on a daily basis would be of GREAT
>> help.
>>
>> As I mentioned before, I plonked Ed Dolan a LONG LONG time ago due to
>> his assinine (sp) comments. I don't even see the posts.
>> ((fortunately)) I'll only respond to those that have a bit of common
>> sense.

Old Harry of Nebraska should plonk himself and give the rest of us some
relief from his asininities. Does he not have some cornhusking to do.

>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:18:08 -0600, "Wilson Warmouth" <ww@jibeloo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>>>news:T-mdnfrXYPb7LcPanZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> You do not need to train at all in order to ride a recumbent long
>>>> distance
>>>> and to be perfectly comfortable doing so as long as you have some
>>>> minimal
>>>> cardiovasular fitness.
>>>
>>>Only Great Saints such as yourself can ride recumbent bikes long
>>>distances
>>>with no training. Regular mortals such as myself require training for
>>>centuries and such.
>>>
>
> I'm not clear on how far a long distance on a recumbent bike might be to
> the Great Saint. I've never had much luck having two way conversations
> with Great Saints and I'm not holding my breath for success with this one.

Centuries are for idiots and "serious cyclists" which are one and the same.
60 to 70 miles in one day is plenty for a "long distance." Do that every day
for a week and you can cross most states.

Saint Edward the Great is my alter ego that I keep in reserve for encounters
with immoral hedonists. So far, you do not fall into that category, but
beware - Saint Edward the Great is a most terrible Saint and even Ed Dolan
the Great fears Him. If I were you, I would not rile Him. Nay, let a
sleeping Saint lie!
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom Sherman]

ryancycles@comcast.net aka **** "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> ever was,

Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
reign.

> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
> Daedalus project engineers.
>
> **** Ryan
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Robert Maskill]

ryancycles@comcast.net wrote:
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> ever was, I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
> Daedalus project engineers.
>
> **** Ryan
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk

An interesting video, found it of interest as I have not really looked
at the recumbent before.

Thanks for posting it and the link

Robert

[Paul Myron Hobson]

ryancycles@comcast.net wrote:
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago...

Man. Are you still as uniformed about the dangers of cycling as you
were then?

--
\\paul
broken collar bone/fractured free since 1982

[Jay]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fiukid$oh8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ryancycles@comcast.net aka **** "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
>> Recumbent video
>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.
>
>> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
>> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
>> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
>> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
>> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
>> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
>> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
>> Daedalus project engineers.
>>
>> **** Ryan
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
You are right Tom,
On the Internet, one can be whomever...
J.

[Chalo]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> **** Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Recumbent video
> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> > ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.

You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!

It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
fully account for my impression. As a member of a chopper and
tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
did.

I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
that safety bikes were so quickly adopted. At best, that means that
'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

Chalo

[ryancycles@comcast.net]

On Dec 2, 11:33 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> ryancyc...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Recumbent video
> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago...
>
> Man. Are you still as uniformed about the dangers of cycling as you
> were then?
>
> --
> \\paul
> broken collar bone/fractured free since 1982

I take it that the riding in Boston traffic appeared dangerous to you.
I can assure you it wasn't, I doubt that I went over fifteen miles per
hour during the ride. The camera perhaps makes the clearances between
the bike and the traffic look tighter than it is. If you want to see
some dangerous riding check out some of the bike messenger videos.
**** Ryan

[It's Chris]

The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
whole ride. Upright's let you change more, reducing stiffness.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Paul Myron Hobson]

ryancycles@comcast.net wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:33 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> ryancyc...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago...
>> Man. Are you still as uniformed about the dangers of cycling as you
>> were then?
>>
>> --
>> \\paul
>> broken collar bone/fractured free since 1982
>
> I take it that the riding in Boston traffic appeared dangerous to you.
> I can assure you it wasn't, I doubt that I went over fifteen miles per
> hour during the ride.

Boston traffic didn't look dangerous at all. I was referring to the
"common injuries such as broken collar bones and fractured skulls."

Cycling, upright or 'bent, simply ain't that hazardous.

\\paul

[DougC]

It's Chris wrote:
> The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
> sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
> whole ride. Upright's let you change more, reducing stiffness.
>

With recumbents (and assuming the bike fits you properly) there
basically is no stiffness to alleviate--at least for the first three or
four hours or so. And by that time you're going to legitimately need a
bathroom break anyway.

You don't have to do the "45 minutes on, 15 minutes off" routine that
you see with uprights. You know the one, where cyclists stop and drink a
bit and stand around to rest their "legs"... (-if their legs are tired,
why not sit down?!?!? Because the only place they have to SIT hurts
their ASS-)
~

[Chalo]

It's Chris wrote:
>
> The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
> sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
> whole ride.

With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
want to ride with you.

Chalo

[It's Chris]

From: dcimper@norcom2000.com (DougC)

>With recumbents (and assuming the bike
>fits you properly) there basically is no
>stiffness to alleviate--at least for the first
>three or four hours or so. And by that
>time you're going to legitimately need
>bathroom break anyway.

>You don't have to do the "45 minutes on,
>15 minutes off" routine that you see with
>uprights. You know the one, where
>cyclists stop and drink a bit and stand
>around to rest their "legs"... (-if their legs
>are tired, why not sit down?!?!? Because
>the only place they have to SIT hurts
>their ASS-)

To each his (or her) own. I wasn't saying it was better or worse, just
commenting on why I personally don't find them comfortable. I can't stay
in the same position for too long, regadless of how comfortable the
chair.

And I usually go 100-120 minutes between rest breaks, for what it's
worth. And you're right. bike fit has more to do with comfort than any
other factor.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Paul O]

Chalo wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
<snip>
>
> Chalo

And as the flames climbed high into the night, To light the sacrificial
rite.
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the flame war started...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

[victor.kan@gmail.com]

On Dec 3, 2:30 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
it.

I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
USS steering system it had.

So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
may have ridden.

....

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
tired urban commuter or trail bike.

Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).

It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.

Please give it one more chance.

Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
overcome:

- adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)

- inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding

- difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
are not designed properly

[Roger Zoul]

"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fdd812a-4c19-4a0f-bfaa-ff3f7750c401@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>> >
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

Seems to.

As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

So? Just because you got soured doesn't prove anything.

>
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
HPVs.

At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors.

That's just steer nonsense.

But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of them
if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair chance.

>
> Chalo

[ryancycles@comcast.net]

, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> Chalo

Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
recumbents a curiosity?

**** Ryan

[Tom Sherman]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when
Chalo's size is taken into account.

> As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension
bicycle shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
past (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.

> At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
and the great amount of misinformation about.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Rex Kerr]

On 2007-12-03, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes.

I'm in that camp. I lusted over recumbents for a long time before
finally buying one. A V-Rex with upgraded components. (supposedly
one of the better recumbents) Anyhow, I was enamored with it at
first, but it wore off. I eventually sold it because the promises
didn't pan out, and I found the bike to be, overall, less comfortable
than my upright bikes, especially on longer rides!

-Rex

[Paul O]

Chalo wrote:
> It's Chris wrote:
>> The only reason I don't like 'bents is not a myth. Recumbents are like
>> sitting in a Sports car, you're pretty much stuck in one position the
>> whole ride.
>
> With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
> want to ride with you.
>
> Chalo

Another nice thing about a sports car is that you can easily complete a
century ride in less than 1 hour and 40 minutes... ;-)

(Actually, pretty much any type of car is capable of doing that.)
--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

[DougC]

Chalo wrote:
>
> With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
> want to ride with you.
>
> Chalo

Yea but in that regard is a recumbent any worse than an upright bike?
I'd say maybe a /tiny/ bit perhaps, but honestly, both chances are about
the same most days.....
~

[Joe Bernard]

On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, "victor....@gmail.com" <victor....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:30 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> > how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> > a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> > fully account for my impression.
>
> I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
> it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
> it.
>
> I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
> USS steering system it had.
>
> So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
> were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
> comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
> may have ridden.
>
> ...
>
> > I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> > tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> > keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> > come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> > that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
> Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
> for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
> tired urban commuter or trail bike.
>
> Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
> now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).
>
> It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
> the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
> to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.
>
> Please give it one more chance.
>
> Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
> overcome:
>
> - adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
> smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)
>
> - inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding
>
> - difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
> are not designed properly

Hey Chalo,

Get on a RANS Rocket, then tell us what you think. The SWB design
mimics the lively feel of a DF quite nicely, and the kinda-upright-for-
a-bent riding position works well in urban settings. If you were able
to control a Bike E at all, the low-speed handling of the Rocket will
be a revelation to you. I'm not saying you'll like it better than DFs,
but I think your overall impression of recumbent design will improve.
My first bent ride was a rental Bike E and I liked it enough to want
to know more, but the LWB Sun EZ-Sport and SWB Rocket I ended up with
are both vastly superior. But what do I know? In the words of the
immortal and suddenly lucid Ed Dolan, I'm old and decrepit [at 45] and
just want to be comfy as I slowly pedal by.

[Tom Sherman]

Joe Bernard wrote:
> On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, "victor....@gmail.com" <victor....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2:30 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
>>> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
>>> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
>>> fully account for my impression.
>> I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
>> it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
>> it.
>>
>> I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
>> USS steering system it had.
>>
>> So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
>> were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
>> comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
>> may have ridden.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>> Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
>> Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
>> for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
>> tired urban commuter or trail bike.
>>
>> Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
>> now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).
>>
>> It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
>> the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
>> to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.
>>
>> Please give it one more chance.
>>
>> Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
>> overcome:
>>
>> - adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
>> smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)
>>
>> - inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding
>>
>> - difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
>> are not designed properly
>
> Hey Chalo,
>
> Get on a RANS Rocket, then tell us what you think. The SWB design
> mimics the lively feel of a DF quite nicely, and the kinda-upright-for-
> a-bent riding position works well in urban settings. If you were able
> to control a Bike E at all, the low-speed handling of the Rocket will
> be a revelation to you. I'm not saying you'll like it better than DFs,
> but I think your overall impression of recumbent design will improve.
> My first bent ride was a rental Bike E and I liked it enough to want
> to know more, but the LWB Sun EZ-Sport and SWB Rocket I ended up with
> are both vastly superior. But what do I know? In the words of the
> immortal and suddenly lucid Ed Dolan, I'm old and decrepit [at 45] and
> just want to be comfy as I slowly pedal by.

This would be good advice, except for one small, er large, problem.
Chalo is 2.05 meters tall and has a mass of about 150 kg (at last
report), which makes him larger than your average NFL tackle. Chalo will
NOT fit properly on a RANS Rocket or practically any other production
recumbent. An XL Lightning P-38 with a longer boom MIGHT be acceptable,
or if Freddy Markham would build a custom Tour Easy with larger diameter
tubing and extended wheelbase.

I am not surprised at his size that Chalo finds the handling or
recumbents that are designed for much smaller people to be poor.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:34:06 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
wrote:

>Chalo wrote:
>>
>> With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
>> want to ride with you.
>>
>> Chalo
>
>Yea but in that regard is a recumbent any worse than an upright bike?
>I'd say maybe a /tiny/ bit perhaps, but honestly, both chances are about
>the same most days.....
>~
That's when a longtail bike comes in handy.

The Xtracycle has provided transportation for two impromptu dates and
done taxi service a few times too.

Sober passengers are easier to carry than drunks.
--
zk

[Edward Dolan]

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:re15j.218$Aw4.209@newsfe07.lga...
>
> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8fdd812a-4c19-4a0f-bfaa-ff3f7750c401@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
> trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
> HPVs.
>
> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors.
>
> That's just steer nonsense.
>
> But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
> recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
> various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of
> them if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair
> chance.

Chalo makes some damn good points about the diversity of recumbent design
being a major problem. Surely there is a best design for a recumbent just as
there was for the upright. Uprights got it right almost from the beginning
and there has been no change in the design from that day forward. However,
this is not the case with recumbents. Design is all over the place.
Something is drastically wrong!

I suggest we listen to posters like Chalo. He can give us some insight into
the problems with reucmbents that we are too blind to see.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[DougC]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:34:06 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> With a sports car, there is some possibility that a pretty girl will
>>> want to ride with you.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>> Yea but in that regard is a recumbent any worse than an upright bike?
>> I'd say maybe a /tiny/ bit perhaps, but honestly, both chances are about
>> the same most days.....
>> ~
> That's when a longtail bike comes in handy.
>
> The Xtracycle has provided transportation for two impromptu dates and
> done taxi service a few times too.
>
> Sober passengers are easier to carry than drunks.

Yea but when it comes to dates, I prefer the drinking ones. I find the
conversation is shorter and more to the point.
~

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"ryancycles@comcast.net" <ryancycles@comcast.net> wrote:

> , the recumbent
> > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
> >
> > Chalo
>
> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> recumbents a curiosity?
>
> **** Ryan

No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[DougC]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> This would be good advice, except for one small, er large, problem.
> Chalo is 2.05 meters tall and has a mass of about 150 kg (at last
> report), which makes him larger than your average NFL tackle. Chalo will
> NOT fit properly on a RANS Rocket or practically any other production
> recumbent. An XL Lightning P-38 with a longer boom MIGHT be acceptable,
> or if Freddy Markham would build a custom Tour Easy with larger diameter
> tubing and extended wheelbase.
>
> I am not surprised at his size that Chalo finds the handling or
> recumbents that are designed for much smaller people to be poor.
>

He should try sitting on a Cycle Genius Falcon if he gets the chance:
> http://www.cyclegenius.com/ltx.html
I am about 6'2" and 285lbs, 2.05 meters and 150kg works out to about
6'7" and 330 lbs or so. Adjusted for me, there's still about three
inches of room to scoot the seat base back. Someone so heavy might watch
the rear wheel spokes, though I'd bet the front would work as-is-OEM.

The Cycle Genius Raven/Falcon is one of the widest-adjustment recumbent
/frames/ around, the seat adjustment can fit people from about four feet
to about six and a half feet--but the handlebars will need to be changed
over that range. Under about 5' you'll need shorter handlebars and near
6' you'll want longer ones. (Also the stem they use is not good, but
changing that out is a minor issue)
~

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Chalo Colina wrote:
[...]
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.

Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a variety
of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers almost
got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. **** Ryan got it wrong with
his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.

I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as there
was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over the
map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.

>> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> the great amount of misinformation about.

Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure them
out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very many
recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents are
for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!

Now if geniuses like **** Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like all
the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute abomination
of a design for a recumbent bicycle.

One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent manufacturers
could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a bad
idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Roger Zoul]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>>> Recumbent video
>>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>>> ever was,
>>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>>> reign.
>>
>> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
>> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>>
>> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
>> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
>> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
>> fully account for my impression.
>
> It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
> had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when Chalo's
> size is taken into account.
>
>> As a member of a chopper and
>> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
>> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
>> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
>> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
>> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
>> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
>> did.
>
> Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
> adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension bicycle
> shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.
>
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
>> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> the great amount of misinformation about.
>

I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> **** Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > , the recumbent
> > > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> > Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> > country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> > approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> > recumbents a curiosity?
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

Along with Rideable Bicycle Replicas of Alameda, CA:

http://hiwheel.com/

Bad ideas don't usually go away; mostly they just go nowhere.

Chalo

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article
> <ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "ryancycles@comcast.net" <ryancycles@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> , the recumbent
>>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
>> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
>> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
>> recumbents a curiosity?
>>
>> **** Ryan
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
>
Wheel and Sprocket generates enough revenue to advertise on billboards,
radio and newspapers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Olebiker]

On Dec 5, 4:39 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Chalo Colina wrote:
> [...]
> >> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> >> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> >> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> >> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> >> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> > Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> > (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> > recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
> Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
> wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a variety
> of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers almost
> got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. **** Ryan got it wrong with
> his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
>
> I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as there
> was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over the
> map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> At best, that means that
> >> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> >> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> >> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> >> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> >> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> >> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> >> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> >> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> > The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> > the great amount of misinformation about.
>
> Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure them
> out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
> has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very many
> recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
> mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
> for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
> youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents are
> for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
>
> Now if geniuses like **** Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
> most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
> recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
> frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
> recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like all
> the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute abomination
> of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
>
> One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent manufacturers
> could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
> not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
> Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a bad
> idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
>
> Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.

[datakoll]

sprake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sdb4ZtvJs

[Edward Dolan]

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I7z5j.9$085.8@newsfe02.lga...
[...]
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by
> all means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that
> all bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better
> than others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
> different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
> narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference here
and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.
Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes. Trikes are a special
breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.

But 2-wheel recumbents differ from one another in the extreme. Consequently
it only attracts characters like you and me who do not mind all these
differences, but the broad mass of folks do not care for all this variety.
It tells them they are dealing with an immature industry or even one that
has gone nuts.

Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
population. The real narrow-mindedness exists with the designers and
manufacturers of recumbents, each and everyone of whom thought that their
confounded design was the best without taking any notice of what was already
out there in the marketplace. A more narrow-minded bunch of stubborn bullies
you will never meet in your life. Hells Bells, there can only be one best
recumbent design, or do not words have any meaning for you.

All those recumbent manufacturers who have failed deserved to have fail and
I do not have an ounce of sympathy for any of them. Not only did they design
badly, but the prices they charged for their product was sky-high. The
public was quite right to ignore the whole miserable bunch of them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[victor.kan@gmail.com]

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

[Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> ...
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
> different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
> narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

Upright bicycles are fine for those who can ride them comfortably, which
may well be a majority of the population. Certainly, the upright design
is better for some uses, such as its obvious superiority on technical
single track.

However, the ridiculous claim is made by some (including several
prominent posters on rec.bicycles.*) that uprights can be made
comfortable for ALL through proper fit, or the the discomfort of upright
bicycles does NOT turn some off of cycling as an activity.

Almost every cyclist would benefit if more people took up the activity.
Why discourage people from riding a crank-forward upright or a recumbent
if that is what it take to have them be an active cyclist? Snobbish elitism?

Then there is the sad case of the real life Fabrizio Mazzoleni's, who
are so insecure that the need to form a clique that degenerates anyone
who do not use the same bicycles, clothing and accessories as the UCI
peloton.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[DougC]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference here
> and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.
> Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.

This is one odd point about upright bicycles--the biggest complaint that
LBS's probably hear is riding discomfort, yet spending more for an
upright bicycle doesn't get you anything more comfortable, it only gets
you something that weighs less--which is not usually a major complaint.

Bicycle companies have known this for a long time, they've pretty much
given up on claiming that any of their upper-end bikes are comfortable.
They emphasize low weights and "racing heritage".

> Trikes are a special
> breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
> bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.
>

I contend that tadpole trikes are inferior to deltas, for the simple
reason that the steering mechanisms of tadpoles is more-susceptible to
flexing and misalignment, and therefore more likely to suffer scrub
losses. The only advantage a typical (low-set) tadpole can claim is that
it can sustain higher cornering forces than a typical delta--but most of
the time when one rides any kind of bicycle, one is riding in basically
straight lines. It doesn't make any sense to choose a trike that
sacrifices straight-line riding riding efficiency for extra cornering
ability, when most of the time you're going to be riding in straight lines.

> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
> population.
>

I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
......
In that respect--we might view anything shorter than a standard LWB as a
bike that is trying to maintain the LWB comfort, while trying to avoid
all the LWB weight. The weight is not usually a problem however, if the
local terrain is even moderately flat then comfort is typically a much
larger issue.

-------

Overwhelmingly the impression I get from other cyclists is that they are
more concerned with looking odd than they are with being physically
uncomfortable.

I doubt I'll live to see recumbents become mainstream. To recognize the
advantages, one must ride a lot of miles on them often. The conditions
necessary to force a lot of US drivers onto bicycles would be drastic,
to put it mildly.
~

[Edward Dolan]

<victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db8b2f88-87e5-426d-a895-7db33cbbd43a@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
>> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by
>> all
>> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
>> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
>> others for particular purposes.
>
> Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
> that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
> maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
> universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

Well Hells Bells, then it is not possible to say anything about anything, is
it? Good Grief ... all that is required to come to some sensible conclusions
about anything is just a bit of rigor. I don't know how some folks can be
such marshmallows!

Uprights are the universal bicycle. There can be no doubt about that at all.
Recumbents are designed for comfort. They give you a seat instead of a
saddle. You cannot be comfortable on an upright unless you are young and
physically fit. If you are old and decrepit, you need a recumbent if you
still want to ride a bike.

There! See how easy it is to actually say something!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Olebiker" <ddurbin@tfn.net> wrote in message
news:4ea238df-0182-4100-871f-ab54c9e9ba39@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 4:39 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> > Chalo Colina wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> >> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> >> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> >> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> >> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>>
>> > Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
>> > past
>> > (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
>> > recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>>
>> Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
>> wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a
>> variety
>> of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers
>> almost
>> got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. **** Ryan got it wrong
>> with
>> his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
>>
>> I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as
>> there
>> was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over
>> the
>> map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>>
>> >> At best, that means that
>> >> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> >> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> >> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> >> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> >> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> >> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> >> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> >> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>
>> > The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
>> > and
>> > the great amount of misinformation about.
>>
>> Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure
>> them
>> out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
>> has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very
>> many
>> recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
>> mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
>> for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
>> youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents
>> are
>> for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
>>
>> Now if geniuses like **** Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
>> most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
>> recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
>> frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
>> recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like
>> all
>> the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute
>> abomination
>> of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
>>
>> One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent
>> manufacturers
>> could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
>> not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
>> Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a
>> bad
>> idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
>>
>> Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
> I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
> miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I suspect
you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
provided you ride a lot.

The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it into
your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
because of the discomfort factor.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Olebiker]

On Dec 5, 2:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Olebiker" <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4ea238df-0182-4100-871f-ab54c9e9ba39@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:39 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> >> > Chalo Colina wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> >> >> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> >> >> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> >> >> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> >> >> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> >> > Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
> >> > past
> >> > (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> >> > recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
> >> Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
> >> wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a
> >> variety
> >> of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers
> >> almost
> >> got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. **** Ryan got it wrong
> >> with
> >> his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
>
> >> I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as
> >> there
> >> was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over
> >> the
> >> map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> >> At best, that means that
> >> >> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> >> >> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> >> >> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> >> >> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> >> >> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> >> >> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> >> >> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> >> >> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> >> > The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
> >> > and
> >> > the great amount of misinformation about.
>
> >> Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure
> >> them
> >> out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
> >> has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very
> >> many
> >> recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
> >> mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
> >> for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
> >> youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents
> >> are
> >> for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
>
> >> Now if geniuses like **** Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
> >> most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
> >> recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
> >> frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
> >> recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like
> >> all
> >> the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute
> >> abomination
> >> of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent
> >> manufacturers
> >> could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
> >> not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
> >> Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a
> >> bad
> >> idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
>
> >> Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
> > I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
> > miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.
>
> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I suspect
> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
> provided you ride a lot.
>
> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it into
> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
> because of the discomfort factor.
> - Show quoted text -

I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
have a problem.

I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
I love riding a wedgie.

[Edward Dolan]

"Olebiker" <ddurbin@tfn.net> wrote in message
news:56a3fe2e-bf23-483b-b005-e702a189e643@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 2:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
>> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
>> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I
>> suspect
>> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
>> provided you ride a lot.
>>
>> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it
>> into
>> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
>> because of the discomfort factor.
>
> I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
> have a problem.
>
> I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
> I love riding a wedgie.

I cannot ride an upright for more than an hour at a time. The back, neck and
shoulder pain is just too much. My cardiovascular fitness was always pretty
good, but I neglected my muscles (other than my leg muscles). Being able to
ride an upright for many hours at a time has to do with overall physical
fitness, not just the legs and cardiovascular fitness. You are doing fine -
so far!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Joe Bernard]

On Dec 5, 2:03 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Olebiker" <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote in message
>
> news:56a3fe2e-bf23-483b-b005-e702a189e643@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 2:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
> >> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
> >> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I
> >> suspect
> >> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
> >> provided you ride a lot.
>
> >> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it
> >> into
> >> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
> >> because of the discomfort factor.
>
> > I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
> > have a problem.
>
> > I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
> > I love riding a wedgie.
>
> I cannot ride an upright for more than an hour at a time. The back, neck and
> shoulder pain is just too much. My cardiovascular fitness was always pretty
> good, but I neglected my muscles (other than my leg muscles). Being able to
> ride an upright for many hours at a time has to do with overall physical
> fitness, not just the legs and cardiovascular fitness. You are doing fine -
> so far!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Uprights are highly efficient devices easily carried on a car. They're
also torture racks. Recumbents are highly efficient and very
comfortable devices which are a nightmare to transport. Until a bent
can easily be thrown on a trunk rack on the back of a '92 Corolla,
they will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity to most
cyclists.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj7hq7$jan$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article
>> <ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> "ryancycles@comcast.net" <ryancycles@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> , the recumbent
>>>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>>>
>>>> Chalo
>>> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
>>> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
>>> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
>>> recumbents a curiosity?
>>>
>>> **** Ryan
>>
>> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
>>
> Wheel and Sprocket generates enough revenue to advertise on billboards,
> radio and newspapers.

This is not due to their recumbent business, but due to their upright
business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
California or Florida.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj7ig6$m6u$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> ...
>> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
>> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by
>> all means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that
>> all bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better
>> than others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
>> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
>> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
>> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety
>> that different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people
>> and narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.
>
> Upright bicycles are fine for those who can ride them comfortably, which
> may well be a majority of the population. Certainly, the upright design is
> better for some uses, such as its obvious superiority on technical single
> track.
>
> However, the ridiculous claim is made by some (including several prominent
> posters on rec.bicycles.*) that uprights can be made comfortable for ALL
> through proper fit, or the the discomfort of upright bicycles does NOT
> turn some off of cycling as an activity.

Most older folks cannot ride uprights and be comfortable on them. They do
not have the physical fitness for it and all the tweaking in the world isn't
going to make any difference.

Recumbents are all about comfort. They do have other virtues of course, but
they are incidental to the comfort issue.

> Almost every cyclist would benefit if more people took up the activity.
> Why discourage people from riding a crank-forward upright or a recumbent
> if that is what it take to have them be an active cyclist? Snobbish
> elitism?
>
> Then there is the sad case of the real life Fabrizio Mazzoleni's, who are
> so insecure that the need to form a clique that degenerates [denigrates]
> anyone who do not use the same bicycles, clothing and accessories as the
> UCI peloton.

I wonder whatever happened to Fab? He was a roadie and possibly even a
racer, but such activities are not for the long run. Those of us who ride
recumbents will continue to do so into our old age, something that almost
all upright riders never do.

Fab amused me at first with his put down of all other cyclists who were not
into racing, but he was a one note Johnny and eventually got to be tiresome.
Good riddance to the jerk!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[ryancycles]

> This is not due to their recumbent business, but due to their upright
> business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
> intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
> However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
> recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
> California or Florida.
>
> location has little or nothing to do with bike sales. The attitudes of the owner and the employees has everything to do with it. One would think that shop owners from other parts of the country would notice the success that W&S has selling recumbents. But they don't and probably never will. A friend of mine works at W&S and related this story to me. Every year Trek has a dealer meeting at the factory (which is not far from W&S's shop in Hale's Corner). As W&S is Trek's biggest dealer and well known as perhaps the most successful bike shop in the country they get quite a few bike shop owner visitors during the dealer meeting. A common question asked by visiting dealers is "why do you have all these recumbents on the floor?". Basically a lot of bike shop owners don't have a clue about business. Of course one of the things that they have to deal with even if they are smart is that the average bike shop employee is a testosterone laden jock who hates recumbents. Comments about recumbents that I've heard in bike shops.
You'll never see one on the floor of this shop!
They don't go up hills.
They are too heavy.
They are too low to the ground.
They're slow.
Sorry, can't help you, don't know anything about them.
Real men ride REAL bicycles!
And my favorite general comment about cycling
"to be a real cyclist you have to be willing to endure pain and
suffering"
The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
told he'd have to come back some other time. I was present at a shop
that sold our bikes and witnessed this wonderful demonstration of
salesmanship. The recumbent guy was discussing the sale of one of our
$4500 tandems to a potential customer. Another salesman overhearing
the conversation stopped and interrupted and said to the couple
interested in the bike "you won't find that thing as comfortable as
you might think" and walked off.
It's rather difficult to popularize a product that for all practical
purposes there are no retail outlets for.
Mr. Chalo is way off base on his comments about poor design, there are
plenty of well designed recumbents out there, but he may be right
about them remaining a curiosity forever.

**** Ryan

[Peter Clinch]

ryancycles wrote:

> They don't go up hills.
> They are too heavy.
> They are too low to the ground.
> They're slow.

What's particularly dopey is the way these get wheeled out even when
there is obvious proof to the contrary:

"that thing's so low, you're invisible!"
"but you saw me, right, you can see me now?"
"yes!"
"errrrrr..."

and so on.

The usual answer to "how do you do x on that?" is "the same way as on an
upright", but people just won't accept it. x is most often steering and