Recumbents

Doki said:

Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent?

FWD, certainly. Zox and Flevo are the obvious examples, plus
the Very Serious Speed machinery used at the likes of Battle
Mountain is sometimes FWD (well, it's not like they have to
go round hairpin bends...).

Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+ that
someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it. IIRC he
basically said that what's fine in theory doesn't work quite
so well in practice and rear steer bikes tend to be
patronised by people called Koko with large red noses...

The Flevo is an interesting exception to the usual rules: it
doesn't steer at either wheel but has a hinge in the middle
of the bike, and can be ridden completely no hands as far as
steering goes (though bars are provided to mount brake and
gear levers)

Quoted message said:

Seems to me you'd save a lot of chain length. Perhaps
they'd struggle for grip up hills?

I believe that is an issue with some, though not bad enough
to render the concept useless. I think it's combining the
steering with the drive that causes more headaches.

OTOH, long chains aren't as bad as you might think: less
wear when used on derailleurs, for example, as the angles
aren't so bad as you move across the cassette.

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] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+
that someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it. IIRC
he basically said that what's fine in theory doesn't work
quite so well in practice and rear steer bikes tend to be
patronised by people called Koko with large red noses...

I was just thinking about this and considering what pushing
a rear steer trolley is like. There is only one word I can
think of to desribe the thought of rear wheel steering on a
fast downhill and that is SCARY (followed by lots of road
rash and a stay in hospital).

There is a reason the back wheels follow the front and that
is stability. Rear steering involves the back going it's own
way. Interesting...

..d

David Martin said:

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like. There is only one
word I can think of to desribe the thought of rear wheel
steering on a fast downhill and that is SCARY (followed by
lots of road rash and a stay in hospital).

ISTR that Thrust SSC was rear-steer.

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

On 21/6/04 4:34 pm, in article [email hidden], "Just zis Guy,

you know? said:

David Martin said:

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like. There is only one
word I can think of to desribe the thought of rear wheel
steering on a fast downhill and that is SCARY (followed
by lots of road rash and a stay in hospital).

ISTR that Thrust SSC was rear-steer.

For limited values of steer, yes. To get sufficient turning
circle you would need a reasonable degree of rotation on the
steered wheel. Thrust type steering would be fine if there
were no corners.

..d

David Martin said:

On 21/6/04 3:56 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Peter Clinch"

Quoted message said:

Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+
that someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it.
IIRC he basically said that what's fine in theory doesn't
work quite so well in practice and rear steer bikes tend
to be patronised by people called Koko with large red
noses...

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like.

Just a case of practice, IME of pushing trolleys with the
steering wheels at the back.

Quoted message said:

There is only one word I can think of to desribe the
thought of rear wheel steering on a fast downhill and that
is SCARY (followed by lots of road rash and a stay in
hospital).

There is a reason the back wheels follow the front and
that is stability. Rear steering involves the back going
it's own way. Interesting...

It wouldn't be difficult to castor the rear wheels so that
they return to straight ahead of their own accord. The
opposite occurs in a car when you reverse, so it gives you
the impression that rear steer is much more unstable than it
has to be.

Just zis Guy, you know? typed:

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like. There is only one
word I can think of to desribe the thought of rear wheel
steering on a fast downhill and that is SCARY (followed
by lots of road rash and a stay in hospital).

ISTR that Thrust SSC was rear-steer.

But Thrust doesn't have 'steering' as such, it's really
just an aid to staying in a straight line at st00pid
speeds ... 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

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

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

On 21/6/04 3:56 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Peter Clinch"

Quoted message said:

Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+
that someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it.
IIRC he basically said that what's fine in theory
doesn't work quite so well in practice and rear steer
bikes tend to be patronised by people called Koko with
large red noses...

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like.

Just a case of practice, IME of pushing trolleys with the
steering wheels at the back.

Do you actually know of any documented case of someone being
able to ride a rear-steered bicycle?

All the experiments I have read of have concluded that it's
pretty much impossible.

It could easily be built into tricycles if you wanted
to though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is only one word I can think of to desribe the
thought of rear wheel steering on a fast downhill and
that is SCARY (followed by lots of road rash and a stay
in hospital).

There is a reason the back wheels follow the front and
that is stability. Rear steering involves the back going
it's own way. Interesting...

The problem is that to turn away from an obstacle you have
to steer towards it. This means that situations can arise
where it is not possible to avoid the obstacle with rear
steering but it could have been avoided with front steering.

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't be difficult to castor the rear wheels so that
they return to straight ahead of their own accord. The
opposite occurs in a car when you reverse, so it gives you
the impression that rear steer is much more unstable than
it has to be.

Very few HPVs have reverse gears[1], so the necessary
corrections possible with a car are not available.

[1] Yes, I know there are a few.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

Mark South said:

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2joh77F13pn6jU1@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

On 21/6/04 3:56 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Peter Clinch"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+
> that someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it.
> IIRC he basically said that what's fine in theory
> doesn't work quite so well in practice and rear steer
> bikes tend to be patronised by people called Koko with
> large red noses...

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like.

Just a case of practice, IME of pushing trolleys with the
steering wheels at the back.

Do you actually know of any documented case of someone
being able to ride a rear-steered bicycle?

All the experiments I have read of have concluded that
it's pretty much impossible.

It could easily be built into tricycles if you wanted
to though.

I was thinking of a pair of rear wheels TBH. I've not tried
it, or read up on. I wouldn't even want to try riding a rear
steer bicycle, too much weight over the wheel that's
lurching across the road quite rapidly...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is only one word I can think of to desribe the
thought of rear wheel steering on a fast downhill and
that is SCARY (followed by lots of road rash and a stay
in hospital).

There is a reason the back wheels follow the front and
that is stability. Rear steering involves the back going
it's own way. Interesting...

The problem is that to turn away from an obstacle you have
to steer towards it. This means that situations can arise
where it is not possible to avoid the obstacle with rear
steering but it could have been avoided with front
steering.

I'm afraid I don't really *get* countersteering. I must do
it, but I've never noticed myself do it. Probably all bunged
away in the brain stem and never consciously thought about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't be difficult to castor the rear wheels so
that they return to straight ahead of their own accord.
The opposite occurs in a car when you reverse, so it
gives you the impression that rear steer is much more
unstable than it has to be.

Very few HPVs have reverse gears[1], so the necessary
corrections possible with a car are not available.

[1] Yes, I know there are a few.

I wasn't thinking of having a reverse gear on the bike, just
that if you ever try reversing at speed in a car, the
slightest steering input results in the car winding a lot of
lock on by itself. The same effect gives the steering self
centring when you're going forwards.

Mark South said:

Do you actually know of any documented case of someone
being able to ride a rear-steered bicycle?

All the experiments I have read of have concluded that
it's pretty much impossible.

I've ridden rear steer bikes. Once you get the hang of it
it's pretty easy, though I haven't ridden them at any
great speed.

Actually, come to think of it, the bikes I'm thinking of
have 2 wheel steering. So it's not the same thing at all:
<URL:http://www.unicycle.uk.com/shop/shopdisplayproduct.asp-
?catalogid=263>

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Doki said:

Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent? Seems to
me you'd save a lot of chain length. Perhaps they'd
struggle for grip up hills?

There are FWD,FWS tadpole trikes - russian titanium ones
turn up occasionally.

There's also one that is FWD via a differential, and steered
by braking teh front wheels individually, like a tank. The
back wheel is just a castor. I quite like that as a scheme,
but I don't think I'd dice with rush-hour traffic on
downhills with it - seems to me it has teh potential to
pirouette and dump you on teh road if you forget yourself
and tug on a brake inappropriately.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

you know? said:

David Martin said:

I was just thinking about this and considering what
pushing a rear steer trolley is like. There is only one
word I can think of to desribe the thought of rear wheel
steering on a fast downhill and that is SCARY (followed
by lots of road rash and a stay in hospital).

ISTR that Thrust SSC was rear-steer.

It was, and when teh engineers proposed it as teh solution
to various problems it was mightily poo-pooed. It'll never
work, inherently unstable, blaah blaah. In fact, read on in
the thread for the sort of comments heaped on teh rear-
steer proposal.

They built a steering prototype by taking a mini, locking
teh front wheels straight, detaching teh back axle and
substituting a long pylon with steering wheels on teh back,
such that the geometry was a scaled-down version of the
Thrust proposal.

Apparently it steered beautifully, no problem at all, as
long all teh linkages were fully 100% ok and there was no
slop in anything.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Doki said:

Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent?

FWD, certainly. Zox and Flevo are the obvious examples,
plus the Very Serious Speed machinery used at the likes of
Battle Mountain is sometimes FWD (well, it's not like they
have to go round hairpin bends...).

Rear steer is a different matter. I think it was in C+
that someone asked this and Mike Burrows answered it. IIRC
he basically said that what's fine in theory doesn't work
quite so well in practice and rear steer bikes tend to be
patronised by people called Koko with large red noses...

The Flevo is an interesting exception to the usual rules:
it doesn't steer at either wheel but has a hinge in the
middle of the bike, and can be ridden completely no hands
as far as steering goes (though bars are provided to mount
brake and gear levers)

Can you post a URL: All I find on the Flevobike site
<URL:http://www.flevobike.nl/indexmodellen.html> is a very
nicely finished and interesting looking velomobile (come to
think of it, it's reviewed in the latest VeloVision). I
can't find any reference to your hinged in the middle
bicycle (but being unable to read Dutch is a drawback here).

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

Ian Smith said:

Doki said:

Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent? Seems to
me you'd save a lot of chain length. Perhaps they'd
struggle for grip up hills?

There are FWD,FWS tadpole trikes - russian titanium ones
turn up occasionally.

There's also one that is FWD via a differential, and
steered by braking teh front wheels individually, like a
tank. The back wheel is just a castor. I quite like that
as a scheme, but I don't think I'd dice with rush-hour
traffic on downhills with it - seems to me it has teh
potential to pirouette and dump you on teh road if you
forget yourself and tug on a brake inappropriately.

Get a little lug you flip over to lock both brakes together
like you do in a tractor then 😉. Or two sets of brakes on
each wheel - one for steering and one for braking.

In "]news:[email hidden],
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Doki said:

Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent?

FWD, certainly. Zox and Flevo are the obvious examples,
plus the Very Serious Speed machinery used at the likes
of Battle Mountain is sometimes FWD (well, it's not like
they have to go round hairpin bends...).

The Flevo is an interesting exception to the usual rules:
it doesn't steer at either wheel but has a hinge in the
middle of the bike, and can be ridden completely no hands
as far as steering goes (though bars are provided to
mount brake and gear levers)

Can you post a URL: All I find on the Flevobike site
<URL:http://www.flevobike.nl/indexmodellen.html> is a very
nicely finished and interesting looking velomobile (come
to think of it, it's reviewed in the latest VeloVision).

home.hccnet.nlflevoracer99.jpgOpen ↗

There's one, it's a Flevoracer.

A

Simon Brooke said:

Countersteering is one of those things about cycling which
people have religious beliefs about. In practice you can
steer a bike by starting the turn by turning the
handlebars the opposite way, in order to get the wheels
out from under the CoG, but it isn't necessary or even
common. If you had a radio controlled bike with a rigidly
mounted crash test dummy this would be the only way to
steer it.

I've got one of them [1], and that is indeed how it steers.

Quoted message said:

But 90% of bike steering at any normal speed is balance
and body weight, and countersteering is very rare in
practice (I very rarely do it and watching other people I
very rarely see it.

I never used to notice it, but now I often notice myself
starting a turn by countersteering. For some reason it's
much more noticeable on the Street Machine that it used to
be on my ATB. Perhaps it's more necessary on a bent than
on a wedgie.

[1] It was my 30th birthday present from my Dad. I
downloaded a 2.84MB movie of it in action from
<URL:http://www.taiyoedge.com/>, but it appears to no
longer be there. Instead, it should be temporarily
possible to get it from here: <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/z-
freestyle.mpg>

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Doki

(') said:

Mark South said:

The problem is that to turn away from an obstacle you
have to steer towards it. This means that situations
can arise where it is not possible to avoid the
obstacle with rear steering but it could have been
avoided with front steering.

I'm afraid I don't really *get* countersteering. I must
do it, but I've never noticed myself do it. Probably all
bunged away in the brain stem and never consciously
thought about.

It's not countersteering, with a rear-steer vehicle that is
*steering*.

Quoted message said:

Countersteering is one of those things about cycling which
people have religious beliefs about.

But on a rear-steered vehicle you have to swing the
rear towards the object you are trying to avoid. Fact,
not religion.

Quoted message said:

In practice you can steer a bike by starting the turn by
turning the handlebars the opposite way, in order to get
the wheels out from under the CoG, but it isn't necessary
or even common. If you had a radio controlled bike with a
rigidly mounted crash test dummy this would be the only
way to steer it. But 90% of bike steering at any normal
speed is balance and body weight, and countersteering is
very rare in practice (I very rarely do it and watching
other people I very rarely see it.

Which probably tells you that humans are not well adapted to
it as a balance control mode.

Quoted message said:

Mind you, cycling theorists will tell you this is
impossible. And that wheels stand on spokes and that
steering is a matter of gyroscopic precession, and all
sorts of other things which are indeed partly true or true
under some circumstances, but which True Believers recite
as mantras of universal truth.

This is all a bit uncalled-for. There is no myth about what
I said relating to rear-steering recumbents. Nor have I
claimed that any of the false statements above are true.
--
"You need to declare a jihad on your own ignorant ass."
- Ed Dolan in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

In "]news:[email hidden],
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Doki wrote:
> Does anyone make a FWD / rear steer recumbent?

FWD, certainly. Zox and Flevo are the obvious examples,
plus the Very Serious Speed machinery used at the likes
of Battle Mountain is sometimes FWD (well, it's not like
they have to go round hairpin bends...).

The Flevo is an interesting exception to the usual
rules: it doesn't steer at either wheel but has a hinge
in the middle of the bike, and can be ridden completely
no hands as far as steering goes (though bars are
provided to mount brake and gear levers)

Can you post a URL: All I find on the Flevobike site
<URL:http://www.flevobike.nl/indexmodellen.html> is a
very nicely finished and interesting looking velomobile
(come to think of it, it's reviewed in the latest
VeloVision).

home.hccnet.nlflevoracOpen ↗
er99.jpg

There's one, it's a Flevoracer.

Ahh! Interesting.

Questions:

Are the handlebars attached to the forward chassis, or to
the rear chassis?

Are the handlebars rigidly attached, or is there a linkage?

What is the mechanism of the link - does it have bearings
like conventional headset bearings, or something more robust
- and are there mechanical problems at the link in practice?

Has anyone here ridden such a thing and if so how did it
ride?

Front wheel drive without twisting the chain line has a lot
to be said for it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Here lies Tony Blair. Tony
Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

In "]news:[email hidden],
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose

Nankivell (') said:

home.hccnet.nlflevoraceOpen ↗
r99.jpg

There's one, it's a Flevoracer.

Ahh! Interesting.

Questions:

IANAExpert, just someone interested. I could well be wrong.

Quoted message said:

Are the handlebars attached to the forward chassis, or to
the rear chassis?

Are the handlebars rigidly attached, or is there a
linkage?

Attached to the rear, rigidly. It's steered by the pedals.
Not considered to be that easy to ride or manouverable, but
aparrently people do commute on them. I'm sure Dave
Larrington can fill you in on it, anyway.

A

Mark South said:

"You need to declare a jihad on your own ignorant ass."
- Ed Dolan in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

Has The Troll of arbr discovered a sense of humour? Maybe I
should rescue him from the killfile....

Mike