Need Another Recumbent

"guynoir" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's the next step up from a Vision R-40? Must have under seat
steering, swb. I'm leaning towards a Haluzak, or another R-40. I
really like the Vision, by the way.
--
John Kimmel
[email hidden]

I had a Vision R-50, getting the Haluzak really won't get you anything new,
the seat on the Vision is better although I liked the steering on the
Haluzak

Depends on what you are looking for

guynoir said:

What's the next step up from a Vision R-40? Must have under seat
steering, swb. I'm leaning towards a Haluzak, or another R-40.

What do you want it to do? Might be the R-40 is perfect for you
application, but without knowing it beyond "a bike to ride around a bit"
it's difficult to say...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

guynoir said:

What's the next step up from a Vision R-40? Must have under seat
steering, swb. I'm leaning towards a Haluzak, or another R-40. I
really like the Vision, by the way.

The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
performance:
<http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour>.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Have you heard about the NoCom?

Just kidding. Love listening to you on radio man.

skip

Buy a NoCom if you have leg muscles and intend to GoFast.
If not but a Bike E and ride the slow bike trail.
No other stock recumbent will ever be faster than the NoCom. EVER.

Cheers,
Johnny NoCom
Fastest Bike in All the Known Universe

Mark he really likes his R-40 and is considering another along with the
Haluzak. So maybe he's not looking for something radically different. In
fact your R-50 might be something he would really like. It could considered
a logical next step up from the R-40. Not everyone is looking for something
radically different as you and lots of others are/were.

Just guessing as far as he goes though.

skip

PS: This is interesting. My spell checker thinks Haluzak is a misspelling
of Phallus.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark he really likes his R-40 and is considering another along with the
Haluzak. So maybe he's not looking for something radically different. In
fact your R-50 might be something he would really like. It could

considered

Quoted message said:

a logical next step up from the R-40. Not everyone is looking for

something

Quoted message said:

radically different as you and lots of others are/were.

Just guessing as far as he goes though.

skip

PS: This is interesting. My spell checker thinks Haluzak is a

misspelling

Quoted message said:

of Phallus.

I'm not suggesting he is looking for something radically different, he
seemed to have a bike he liked and I was wondering why go for a different
brand? If I were looking for something like my R50 I'd buy another R50,
seems he should go for another R40?

The 50 was nice but it was also heavier due to the suspension, something he
might not like, now if he WANTS suspension and weight isn't a factor then
thats another story

The Real Johnny NoCom said:

Fastest Bike in All the Known Universe

.... would be the Varna ridden by Sam Whittingham, according to the
record books!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
performance:
<http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour>.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Anyways, I prefer a 26" rear wheel
(along with
a full mesh seat and linkage USS), so I use a Haluzak. I'd say try
one and see for yourself what you prefer.

"116" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
performance:

<http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour

Quoted message said:

.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Anyways, I prefer a 26" rear wheel
(along with
a full mesh seat and linkage USS), so I use a Haluzak. I'd say try
one and see for yourself what you prefer.

I went from a mesh seat to an M5-type on the Optima and didn't miss it, not
that the mesh seat was bad but the Optima seat was that much better. Also he
may not like going from the seat on the Vision to the Haluzak, at least I
didn't care for it although others here don't have a problem with it. If the
seat was reclined I could no longer place my feet flat on the ground due to
the seat design. I swapped my Baron with a friend's Horizon during a ride a
month ago, while it was a solid bike the Haluzak isn't performance oriented,
I was lucky to maintain 15mph in areas where I could easily do 20+ on the
Baron, the Haluzak just plain didn't want to go fast. Obviously the Baron is
made for racing but looking at the Hurricane it shouldn't be that much
different

I agree with Tom, the Hurricane should be a better choice if he wants more
performance although I would prefer the Fujin SL only because I don't care
for the looks of a dual 20" wheel bike.

116 said:

Quoted message said:

The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
performance:
<http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour>.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Anyways, I prefer a 26" rear wheel
(along with
a full mesh seat and linkage USS), so I use a Haluzak. I'd say try
one and see for yourself what you prefer.

The main advantage of the larger rear wheel is that normal sized
chainrings can be used to obtain reasonably wide gearing in a derailleur
system. Oversized chainrings limit overall gear range quite a bit due to
front derailleur capacity, unless internally geared hubs, Schlumpf BB,
or mid-drive step-up are used, which increases cost, weight, and complexity.

Seat type is a very individual thing, and comfort appears impossible to
predict. As an example, strong partisans of both the RANS and Lightning
seats can be found among those who have owned both bikes.

Note that the Challenge Hurricane Sport USS has direct steering, while
the Hurricane Tour USS using an indirect steering linkage.

In comparing the Haluzak SWB to the Vision 40 series, the Haluzak has a
couple of significant advantages, and a related disadvantage. The
Haluzak has better low speed handling and better hand/brake/shifter
positions due to the indirect USS. Due to the cantilevered chain stays,
the Haluzak has a more comfortable ride than the Vision 40 series.
However, the more rigid rear of the Vision will make it a better bike
for pulling a single-wheel trailer or carrying heavy panniers.
Both the Haluzak and Vision are quite similar in seating position, BB
height, and weight distribution.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

guynoir said:

What's the next step up from a Vision R-40? Must have under seat
steering, swb. I'm leaning towards a Haluzak, or another R-40. I
really like the Vision, by the way.
--
John Kimmel
[email hidden]

Naturally, these humorous remarks are all entirely my own opinion, based
solely
on rumor, supposition, innuendo and damned lies, and should be
interpreted in a
spirit of fun. My memory is faulty, also.

If you really like the vision,maybe you could give it a custom powdercoat,restore it and ride it for another year.You might save a little money by doing it that way.

Quoted message said:

The main advantage of the larger rear wheel is that normal sized
chainrings can be used

I'd say the main advantage is a reduction in road friction, hence my
doubt that the Challenge Hurricane would be a step up in performance.

Quoted message said:

Seat type is a very individual thing, and comfort appears impossible to
predict. As an example, strong partisans of both the RANS and Lightning
seats can be found among those who have owned both bikes.

I agree--I love my Haluzak seat but I can see others hating it with the
same passion. My recommendation is that people be aware that there are
different seat types and for them to check them all out and see for
themselves
which they prefer.

Quoted message said:

In comparing the Haluzak SWB to the Vision 40 series, the Haluzak has a
couple of significant advantages, and a related disadvantage. The
Haluzak has better low speed handling and better hand/brake/shifter
positions due to the indirect USS.

I guess I agree with this although low speed handling is still a
challenge--i.e. if the 'zak is better, I guess I wouldn't want to
try a 'bent that is worse. I am happy to report, however, that at
speeds up to over 50mph the handling has, thank goodness, been solid.

Quoted message said:

Due to the cantilevered chain stays,
the Haluzak has a more comfortable ride than the Vision 40 series.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

However, the more rigid rear of the Vision will make it a better bike
for pulling a single-wheel trailer or carrying heavy panniers.

You're on the mark again.

Quoted message said:

Both the Haluzak and Vision are quite similar in seating position, BB
height, and weight distribution.

I believe the Haluzak is lighter and noticeably so, hence I see it as
the
performance uptick over the Vision.

Quoted message said:

I went from a mesh seat to an M5-type on the Optima and didn't miss it, not
that the mesh seat was bad but the Optima seat was that much better. Also he
may not like going from the seat on the Vision to the Haluzak, at least I
didn't care for it although others here don't have a problem with it. If the
seat was reclined I could no longer place my feet flat on the ground due to
the seat design.

True, even at 6' I need to point my feet down and make contact with my
toes
(and until I got the knack for it, hitting a slippery surface with said
toes
was problematic). I do have the seat reclined 3/4 back and am more
concerned
with riding comfort and performance than at rest.

Quoted message said:

I swapped my Baron with a friend's Horizon during a ride a
month ago, while it was a solid bike the Haluzak isn't performance oriented,
I was lucky to maintain 15mph in areas where I could easily do 20+ on the
Baron, the Haluzak just plain didn't want to go fast. Obviously the Baron is
made for racing but looking at the Hurricane it shouldn't be that much
different

I'm able to hammer on my 'zak, though usually I don't. In my opinion, it
is
performance oriented which is one of the reasons (besides the seat and
USS)
I got it. I mean, it's not like it's a BikeE.

116 said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The main advantage of the larger rear wheel is that normal sized
chainrings can be used

I'd say the main advantage is a reduction in road friction, hence my
doubt that the Challenge Hurricane would be a step up in performance.

Other than using a very large chainring gearing a small wheeled bike for
speed has its own set of problems that aren't easily solved and would seem
to rule out hub gearing and the like. So if speed is your is your main need
then you wouldn't want a bike with shocks, racks, or the beefy frame such as
the one on the Hurricane

As far as the rolling resistance of small wheels vs large wheels is
concerned I think it may depend on the set-up. Keep in mind the upright
bike speed record of something around 51 mph was held, and may still be
held, by a Moulton with 18" wheels.

skip

Tom Sherman said:

116 said:

Quoted message said:

The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
performance:
<http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour>.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Anyways, I prefer a 26" rear wheel
(along with
a full mesh seat and linkage USS), so I use a Haluzak. I'd say try one
and see for yourself what you prefer.

The main advantage of the larger rear wheel is that normal sized
chainrings can be used to obtain reasonably wide gearing in a derailleur
system. Oversized chainrings limit overall gear range quite a bit due to
front derailleur capacity, unless internally geared hubs, Schlumpf BB,
or mid-drive step-up are used, which increases cost, weight, and
complexity.

Seat type is a very individual thing, and comfort appears impossible to
predict. As an example, strong partisans of both the RANS and Lightning
seats can be found among those who have owned both bikes.

Note that the Challenge Hurricane Sport USS has direct steering, while
the Hurricane Tour USS using an indirect steering linkage.

In comparing the Haluzak SWB to the Vision 40 series, the Haluzak has a
couple of significant advantages, and a related disadvantage. The
Haluzak has better low speed handling and better hand/brake/shifter
positions due to the indirect USS. Due to the cantilevered chain stays,
the Haluzak has a more comfortable ride than the Vision 40 series.
However, the more rigid rear of the Vision will make it a better bike
for pulling a single-wheel trailer or carrying heavy panniers. Both the
Haluzak and Vision are quite similar in seating position, BB height, and
weight distribution.

I agree with all of these points with the exception of pulling a single
wheel trailer with the vision... I own, among others, a 1999 vision r44
and a bob single wheel trailer. I have lost control of the steering on a
flat area of the road on the vision, and have seen my son have the same
thing happen on a vision r40, going down a hill on a trip from Canada to
Philly. Were we going over the rated speed recommended by bob? yes in my
sons instance and no in mine... I would not recommend a single wheel
trailer with the vision r40 style bikes. I test rode a Haluzak swb in
town, but did not pull a trailer with it, and was not on it long enough to
be able to give advise, but i did enjoy the ride. I have about 12,000
miles on the vision r44 and several 100's of miles on tour with it.

Regards Daniel Payne

Daniel Payne said:

Tom Sherman said:

116 said:

>The USS version of the Challenge Hurricane should be a step up in
>performance:
><http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=hurricanetour>.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Anyways, I prefer a 26" rear wheel
(along with
a full mesh seat and linkage USS), so I use a Haluzak. I'd say try one
and see for yourself what you prefer.

The main advantage of the larger rear wheel is that normal sized
chainrings can be used to obtain reasonably wide gearing in a derailleur
system. Oversized chainrings limit overall gear range quite a bit due to
front derailleur capacity, unless internally geared hubs, Schlumpf BB,
or mid-drive step-up are used, which increases cost, weight, and
complexity.

Seat type is a very individual thing, and comfort appears impossible to
predict. As an example, strong partisans of both the RANS and Lightning
seats can be found among those who have owned both bikes.

Note that the Challenge Hurricane Sport USS has direct steering, while
the Hurricane Tour USS using an indirect steering linkage.

In comparing the Haluzak SWB to the Vision 40 series, the Haluzak has a
couple of significant advantages, and a related disadvantage. The
Haluzak has better low speed handling and better hand/brake/shifter
positions due to the indirect USS. Due to the cantilevered chain stays,
the Haluzak has a more comfortable ride than the Vision 40 series.
However, the more rigid rear of the Vision will make it a better bike
for pulling a single-wheel trailer or carrying heavy panniers. Both the
Haluzak and Vision are quite similar in seating position, BB height, and
weight distribution.

I agree with all of these points with the exception of pulling a single
wheel trailer with the vision... I own, among others, a 1999 vision r44
and a bob single wheel trailer. I have lost control of the steering on a
flat area of the road on the vision, and have seen my son have the same
thing happen on a vision r40, going down a hill on a trip from Canada to
Philly. Were we going over the rated speed recommended by bob? yes in my
sons instance and no in mine... I would not recommend a single wheel
trailer with the vision r40 style bikes. I test rode a Haluzak swb in
town, but did not pull a trailer with it, and was not on it long enough to
be able to give advise, but i did enjoy the ride. I have about 12,000
miles on the vision r44 and several 100's of miles on tour with it.

The Vision R-44 has a lighter, more flexible frame [1] than the R-40,
however it is hard to predict without more information how this would
affect single-wheel trailer towing.

[1] If I recall correctly, ATP Vision only made a LWB conversion kit for
the R-40, and not the R-44/45.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Mark Leuck said:

I went from a mesh seat to an M5-type on the Optima and didn't miss it, not
that the mesh seat was bad but the Optima seat was that much better.

I went from a Speed Ross to a Streetmachine, and prefer the hard seat to
the mesh too... /but/ the thing about a hard seat is it /must/ be right.
I tried a Mistral and didn't find that especially comfortable. Roos
has a Nazca Fiero which has the seat cut away around the shoulder
blades, which she prefers, though I prefer mine supported, as my
Streetmachine's seat does. You have to try them to be sure.

Quoted message said:

I agree with Tom, the Hurricane should be a better choice if he wants more
performance although I would prefer the Fujin SL only because I don't care
for the looks of a dual 20" wheel bike.

Varies from bike to bike. The Challenge Taifun and Nazca Fiero are
about as good looking bikes as come along in any shape or form, to my
eyes, much nicer than the Hurricane (or Stinger, or Grasshopper, or
Mistral, etc. etc.). And conceding they /can/ be cooler is a problem as
I ride a good looking (IMHO) 26/20 and must acknowledge aesthetics
rights to Roos' 20/20 Fiero.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/