Gold Rush vs. Rans V2

"T.E.O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?

Please opine.

There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
pocketbook.

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height.

Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy. Go to Bent
Rider On Line and read the recumbent guide. Or WISL has a
guide that used to be run by the Washington DC "ungroup"
and Mark M.

Miles of Smiles,

Tom

I have ridden both and like the ride of the GR more. I also
have purchased one (GR)..... Is it worth the extra money?
That really depends how much $$ you have.... If I had it to
do over, I might have even gone for the TI GR. The GR hasn't
had many design changes that I am aware of..... when I buy a
bicycle, I figure it is a 10 year investment, and per year,
the cost isn't prohibitive.

Arne

=====================
"skip" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZLmdnVMGz5Zl7-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"T.E.O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MOJ-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?

Please opine.

There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me..
Ride both and decide which is the best for you and your
pocketbook.

i think a v2 vrs a tour easy is more inline, as they both
are cro moly.. a GRR to v2 formula wiuld be another good
comparision as they both are aluminum. however arent to many
v2 formula around yet.. i wonder how a V2 formula, fully
socked would rate speed wise to a GRR socked..

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height.

Tom makes a very valid point. My wife has a Gold Rush. She
went with Easy Racers because of the lower bottom bracket as
well as the availability of and the ease of installation of
the fairing and body sock. The V2 used to come with a
fairing and one can still be installed, but I haven't seen a
V2 with a body or a tail sock. She also felt that the GR was
lighter (not that it is, only that she felt that it was as
well as more responsive). She has been very happy with her
choice. I, on the other hand, having the assignment of
staying with her once she starts to motor in that darn body
sock, sometimes wish she had reconsidered. Decision revolves
around how each bike feels to you. If they are close then
the money difference weighs heavy. But if the GR is a clear
winner I always find that it is better to go with what feels
the best, even at a higher price, than going cheaper and
wishing later you hadn't.

Mike S. St. Louis, Mo.

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height.

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the
aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also triangulated,
but it looks very monotube). All those little tubes running
every which way strike me as being highly inelegant. The
fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come up with anything new in
their designs for the Tour Easy line of recumbents in over
20 years as far as I can tell. The Easy Racer recumbents are
all over priced too. I think it will cost nearly $2000. now
for a really old fashion looking Tour Easy.

I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
clunky next to it.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design

Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument

:-)

I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and even
Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
works well enough for enough people to justify its continued
production. The prices, new and used, seem to reflect this
versatility.

In terms of differences between GRR and V2, well, they're
different. GRRs (&TEs) have a ready supplier of bodysocks if
you want to go that way.

Good Luck,

H

Howard <bishop(1199bitshiftleft1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design

Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument.

There is always good taste and then there is bad taste. It
goes without saying which I am in possession of. 😉

Quoted message said:

I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not
everyone does. That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's
something good to be said for the design remaining nearly
constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley, Kronin, and
even Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in
something like a 110 years (the classic English 3-speed
type). In both cases, we're talking about a design that
works well enough for enough people to justify its
continued production. The prices, new and used, seem to
reflect this versatility.

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design. However,
this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit upon
it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same
to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I
can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very much the
same in their design function and in their appearance
function (aesthetic).

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
them. It would just look so much better. Recumbents don't
really need to have anything to do with a diamond frame
appearance as has been proven repeatedly with the many
excellent monotube designs.

I do think Rans has the best looking line of recumbents of
any manufacturer. All of their recumbents are triangulated,
but they appear more monotube than otherwise (except for the
Stratus of course). I think Burley is also making a very
handsome line of recumbents now. The Burleys are all
strictly monotubes.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design. However,
this is not true of recumbents. I also believe there is a
perfect design for a recumbent too, but no one has hit
upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart Special
as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are both very
much the same in their design function and in their
appearance function (aesthetic).

This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the failure
rate for components was high. Inop shifters, brakes, wheel
bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a steakhouse
floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are lousy when wet,
and rain happens.

But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.

Quoted message said:

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the
same proportions and measurements exactly as they now have
them. It would just look so much better.

It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
Creek, I think.

Quoted message said:

course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
line of recumbents now.

Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me :-) Most
of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a Burley
a second look.

On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

"Howard" <bishop(1199<<1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
and there is never any reason to change its design.
However, this is not true of recumbents. I also believe
there is a perfect design for a recumbent too, but no
one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision
about what looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the
same to me. I can almost be as happy with a K-Mart
Special as I can with an Italian racing bike. They are
both very much the same in their design function and in
their appearance function (aesthetic).

Quoted message said:

This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly
milage is in the hundreds, dept store bikes have some
serious shortcomings. I wouldn't want to ride a commonly
equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several thousand
miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the
failure rate for components was high. Inop shifters,
brakes, wheel bearings spewed out like peanut shells on a
steakhouse floor, cracked frames, etc. Steel rims are
lousy when wet, and rain happens.

I was only discussing configuration of the frame. Give a few
inches here and there and a few degrees of angle here and
there -they are essentially the same. You really can't say
that about recumbents. The frames are very different from
one another in their configurations.

Quoted message said:

But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than
we'd like to think. The continued existance of Record and
Dura Ace is a triumph of marketing, IMO.

I have never been into components. The mid level stuff is
just fine with me. All I ever ask is that it just work and
not be bothering me with adjustments and repairs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign
their Tour Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep
the same proportions and measurements exactly as they
now have them. It would just look so much better.

It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett
Creek, I think.

Quoted message said:

course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome
line of recumbents now.

Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me :-)
Most of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a
Burley a second look.

I am not sure about the comfort of that seat, but if it is
truly comfy, then I think Burley is on its way. I am not
into lightness or speed much anymore, but a recumbent has
got to handle well and it has got to look well too since
they are all damn expensive.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email hidden] (Edward
Dolan) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and
there is never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional
diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist
is set on the bike). I do not see why they should be banned.
However recumbents are a different creature altogether so I
can see why they would be banned.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
and there is never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

Quoted message said:

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
traditional diamond frame bikes in their configuration (how
the cyclist is set on the bike).

You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley delivery
boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering. DFs are
just as broad a church as 'bents. Especially if you extend
DF to include all upwrongs, in which case you start getting
exotic creatures like the Burrows 8-Freight.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

I just have to say it...

You are aware a monotube structure is physically inferior to
a triangulated one in every way? Unless one has the
capability to change the monotube dimensions, thickness,
cross section, etc, continuously over the length of the
tube. Which can be done with composites but aint no one
ready to pay that kind of cash.

A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
triangulated design.

Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that because you
dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
agrees with you.

Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells for
less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
business. These are made in the USA, some folks are willing
to pony up a little extra for the quality and peace of mind
buying an Easy Racers ensures.

And some aren't.

But get off of your monotube high horse, monotubes are
demonstratably inferior to well engineered
triangulated frames.

Gabriel DeVault

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

Quoted message said:

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the
extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??" "Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high
bottom brackets.

They

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

say they get "numb feet" because of the height.

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also
the aesthetic design difference. I have always like the
appearance of a monotube design over the by now very old
fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2 is also
triangulated, but it looks very monotube). All those
little tubes running every which way strike me as being
highly inelegant. The fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come
up with anything new in their designs for the Tour Easy
line of recumbents in over 20 years as far as I can tell.
The Easy Racer recumbents are all over priced too. I think
it will cost nearly $2000. now for a really old fashion
looking Tour Easy.

I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only
several hundred dollars and that is about what they are
worth. I think the Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS
that I have ever seen. The Tour Easy looks downright
clunky next to it.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

...Rans....

This is by far the most ridiculous thing Mr. Dolan has ever
written. 😉

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

THOMAS E BLUM said:

... You would be better advised to consider the design
differences. Mainly the bottom bracket height. Many people
can't handle high bottom brackets. They say they get "numb
feet" because of the height....

Conversely, the primary reason I have seen for people
selling their Easy Racers bicycles is persistent recumbent
but from the upright seating position.

Quoted message said:

Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a
long wheelbase more comparable to the tour easy....

There is also that bike called the RANS Stratus - of course
it has only been around 20+ years so some people may not yet
be aware of it. 😉

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

THOMAS E BLUM said:

... Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only
might disagree....

And who would that be?

Puzzled,

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message <mradneArfbb0f-fdRVn-
[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago
>and there is never any reason to change its design.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

Quoted message said:

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the
traditional diamond

frame

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on
the bike).

You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article
with no further improvement possible, any more than 'bents
are. The diamond frame bike varies from the Pashley
delivery boy bike to the latest all-carbon track offering.
DFs are just as broad a church as 'bents.

But I am struck by how similar all uprights are to one
another and recumbents strike me just the opposite of that.
I am only talking about the frame configuration and how the
cyclist is set on that frame. Everything else about an
upright is nothing but Mickey Mouse to me. It simply doesn't
matter what the frame is made out of or what kind of wheels
and other components with which that frame is furnished. The
shape of the frame determines the bike. I maintain that all
uprights are basically the same.

Get out your new Hostel Shoppe Catalog and have a look
at all the recumbents displayed there. They are all as
different as night and day. They set the cyclist on the
recumbent differently because they are different. That
is always the determining factor and the only one that I
pay any attention to. Like I said, everything else is
Mickey Mouse.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

I just have to say it...

You are aware a monotube structure is physically
inferior to a

triangulated

Quoted message said:

one in every way? Unless one has the capability to change
the monotube dimensions, thickness, cross section, etc,
continuously over the length of the tube. Which can be
done with composites but aint no one ready to pay that
kind of cash.

A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER
have the ride qualities of a well tuned and refined
triangulated design.\

So just how strong does a tube have to be anyway to carry
the weight of a normal human being? Part of the problem is
that many recumbent cyclists are very heavy people, some
weighing close to 250 lbs. So maybe they do need a
triangulated frame. But I continue to be struck by how many
seem to like the looks of the Tour Easy. I believe monotubes
are the wave of the future. They not only look better, but
they must also be easier and cheaper to manufacture. Time
will tell.

Quoted message said:

Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly
aerodynamically superior to the Harley types. Yet the
Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that

because

Quoted message said:

you dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone
agrees with you.

Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells
for less is either making them offshore or has gone out of
business. These are made in the

USA,

Quoted message said:

some folks are willing to pony up a little extra for the
quality and peace of mind buying an Easy Racers ensures.

All recumbents are more expensive than they should be due to
their relative rarity. But Easy Racers have really gone up
in their prices over the years and are now top of the line
in price. Thank God for Sun Bicycles and their EZ line of
recumbents. I really feel kind of sorry for anyone who is
just getting into recumbents now as you can't do it for just
a couple of hundred like I did 20 years ago.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota