30 years of improvements

[shudder] My geek-o-meter went off the scale on that one.

What am I seeing in the rear - a 3-speed hub?

jim h said:

[shudder] My geek-o-meter went off the scale on that one.

What am I seeing in the rear - a 3-speed hub?

It could be a 3-speed hub - I can not see the details
clearly on my monitor.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

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

Quoted message said:

Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake
is visible in the picture - not that a rear brake would be
of much use with the poor weight distribution. The overly
long boom must be quite flexible, and the single-speed
drivetrain would be quite limiting.
<http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG>.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the same
bike that is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-
Powered Vehicles", as modified by David Gordon Wilson (he
shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first
GPS would probably look less strange to modern 'bentists,
being more like a P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB and
thought OSS was unsafe because of possible impact with the
column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did
(probably) the Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the
Avatar 2000, which had the same riding position, but was
LWB, which lead to the Ryan ([censored] Ryan was involved with the
Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.

John Riley 1 at rogers dot com

Friends,

That is David Gordon Wilson's second recumbent design, Green
Planet Special II.

The third was the Avatar 1000-granddaddy of all the
Hypercycle, Turner, S&B, Haluzak, Vision, etc. long nosed,
USS, SWB bikes. Last was the Avatar 2000-granddaddy of all
the Ryan, Infinity, Linear, Tailwind, etc. USS, LWB bikes.

Ironically, his first, Green Planet Special I, was a
beautiful OSS, MWB-the granddaddy of the Lightning P-38,
Ross Speed, Kingcycle, Giro, etc.

Warren

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear
brake is visible in the picture - not that a rear brake
would be of much use with the poor weight distribution.
The overly long boom must be quite flexible, and the single-
speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
<http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG>.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the
same bike that is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-
Powered Vehicles", as modified by David Gordon Wilson (he
shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first
GPS would probably look less strange to modern 'bentists,
being more like a P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB
and thought OSS was unsafe because of possible impact with
the column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did
(probably) the Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the
Avatar 2000, which had the same riding position, but was
LWB, which lead to the Ryan ([censored] Ryan was involved with
the Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.

The really interesting thing about all this history of the
early recumbent is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB
and ended up with LWB because there were so many inherent
problems with SWB which LWB completely solved. I rest my
case for LWB!

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake
is visible in the picture - not that a rear brake would
be of much use with the poor weight distribution. The
overly long boom must be quite flexible, and the single-
speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
<http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG>.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the
same bike that is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-
Powered Vehicles", as modified by David Gordon Wilson (he
shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first
GPS would probably look less strange to modern 'bentists,
being more like a P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB
and thought OSS was unsafe because of possible impact with
the column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did
(probably) the Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the
Avatar 2000, which had the same riding position, but was
LWB, which lead to the Ryan ([censored] Ryan was involved with
the Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.

The really interesting thing about all this history of the
early recumbent is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB
and ended up with LWB because there were so many inherent
problems with SWB which LWB completely solved. I rest my
case for LWB!

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would
interview David Gordon Wilson, [censored] Ryan, Gardner Martin,
John and Randy Schlitter, Milt Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and
write a book about the development of the modern recumbent
bicycle in North America.

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs
appeared to be driven by the objective of avoiding
foot/wheel interference. As experienced SWB riders know,
this is generally not the concern it would appear to be, as
it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and does not
necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing this
criterion allows for a shorter boom that greatly improves
frame stiffness, weight distribution, handling and braking.

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion
have bottom brackets that are substantially higher than
seat level. From this we can conclude that the LWB design
is a better choice for those who suffer from foot
numbness problems.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2i4iirFj2sojU1@uni-
berlin.de... [...]

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The really interesting thing about all this history of
the early

recumbent

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB and ended up
with LWB because there were so many inherent problems
with SWB which LWB completely

solved. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rest my case for LWB!

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would
interview David Gordon Wilson, [censored] Ryan, Gardner Martin,
John and Randy Schlitter, Milt Turner, Tim Brummer, etc.
and write a book about the development of the modern
recumbent bicycle in North America.

I second the above motion! The development of the modern
recumbent began about 25 years ago. There were some articles
in RCN that touched on this early history. I will do a bit
of research and give you my findings about what was
discovered with respect to my statement above. I believe the
main article was an interview with David Gordon Wilson. But
there needs to be a full review of the entire subject.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs
appeared to be driven by the objective of avoiding
foot/wheel interference. As experienced SWB riders know,
this is generally not the concern it would appear to be,
as it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and
does not necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing
this criterion allows for a shorter boom that greatly
improves frame stiffness, weight distribution, handling
and braking.

There was more to it than that. I believe there was
also quite a bit of concern about center of balance
issues as well.

Quoted message said:

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion
have bottom brackets that are substantially higher than
seat level. From this we can conclude that the LWB design
is a better choice for those who suffer from foot numbness
problems.

I can vouch for the above as I am one of those who simply
can't ride a recumbent with the BB much higher than the seat
due to foot numbness. But even aside from that particular
problem, I believer that the seat should be slightly higher
than the BB for ergonomic reasons having to do with
efficiency. I believe that the higher the BB in relation to
the seat, the more it detracts from power effectiveness. The
only advantage is aerodynamics and that does not make up for
the loss of power to the pedal. This all relates to human
physiology. We are not designed by nature to have our legs
work above our posteriors.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2i4iirFj2sojU1@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would
interview David Gordon Wilson, [censored] Ryan, Gardner
Martin, John and Randy Schlitter, Milt Turner, Tim
Brummer, etc. and write a book about the development of
the modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

I second the above motion! The development of the modern
recumbent began about 25 years ago. There were some
articles in RCN that touched on this early history. I will
do a bit of research and give you my findings about what
was discovered with respect to my statement above. I
believe the main article was an interview with David
Gordon Wilson. But there needs to be a full review of the
entire subject.

Point taken about there not being a single source, but
numerous articles have been written by and about the above
people. Older material might be found in the periodical
"Human Power" , in the IHPVA Scientific Symposia proceedings
books, and "Bicycling Science". Newer material might be
found in books like "Human-Powered Vehicles", "The Recumbent
Bicycle" and "Bike Cult".

DGW's history of the Avatar has been published numerous
places, including some of the above.

We might have ended up with more and better, and maybe a
single definitive reference, except for the arrival of the
internet. The stuff available for free on the internet is
not comprehensive, but there is enough of it that most
people won't pay for recumbent related content. The IHPVA
just limps along now.

ihpva.orgihpva.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs
appeared to be driven by the objective of avoiding
foot/wheel interference. As experienced SWB riders know,
this is generally not the concern it would appear to be,
as it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and
does not necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing
this criterion allows for a shorter boom that greatly
improves frame stiffness, weight distribution, handling
and braking.

There was more to it than that. I believe there was
also quite a bit of concern about center of balance
issues as well.

Quoted message said:

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion
have bottom brackets that are substantially higher than
seat level. From this we can conclude that the LWB
design is a better choice for those who suffer from foot
numbness problems.

I can vouch for the above as I am one of those who simply
can't ride a recumbent with the BB much higher than the
seat due to foot numbness. But even aside from that
particular problem, I believer that the seat should be
slightly higher than the BB for ergonomic reasons having
to do with efficiency. I believe that the higher the BB in
relation to the seat, the more it detracts from power
effectiveness. The only advantage is aerodynamics and that
does not make up for the loss of power to the pedal. This
all relates to human physiology. We are not designed by
nature to have our legs work above our posteriors.

I don't presume to speak for DGW, but Ed's comments are
along the lines of DGW's IIRC. At the very least, DGW
thought a lower BB was more comfortable. He and Willkie
started with a higher BB and went lower. Given a lower BB,
there were lots of issues with the SWB.

Back to history for a moment: At some point in the coming
years we will be leaving the house we are in. I don't think
my collection of bike material will make the move. I will
offer it free to anyone who might provide a good home for it
and who will pay shipping, if necessary.

It is not cataloged, and stuff that should have been dated
(like bike brochures) is not. So it is a big mess, really.
It might include photos from early IHPVA races in
Indianapolis. Haven't decided about that yet.

john riley 1 at rogers dot com

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

Quoted message said:

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would
interview David Gordon Wilson, [censored] Ryan, Gardner Martin,
John and Randy Schlitter, Milt Turner, Tim Brummer, etc.
and write a book about the development of the modern
recumbent bicycle in North America.

I have compiled a lot of history for the Avatar/Ryan branch
of the recumbent tree here:
ryanownersclub.comhistoryOpen ↗

PB

I agree with your point about dedicated publications
fostering development. I have seen this gap in other
publishing. Between the refreshing and innovative rants of
newsgroups and the researched (but increasingly advertising
slanted) perspective of dedicated pubs, lies the future.

And the future is good, except for the part that requires
lots of fossil fuel.

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would
interview David Gordon Wilson, [censored] Ryan, Gardner
Martin, John and Randy Schlitter,

Milt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and write a book about the
development of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

I second the above motion! The development of the modern
recumbent began about 25 years ago. There were some
articles in RCN that touched on this early history. I
will do a bit of research and give you my findings

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what was discovered with respect to my statement above.
I believe the

main

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

article was an interview with David Gordon Wilson. But
there needs to be

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

full review of the entire subject.

Point taken about there not being a single source, but
numerous articles have been written by and about the above
people. Older material might be found in the periodical
"Human Power" , in the IHPVA Scientific Symposia
proceedings books, and "Bicycling Science". Newer material
might be found in books like "Human-Powered Vehicles",
"The Recumbent Bicycle" and "Bike Cult".

DGW's history of the Avatar has been published numerous
places, including some of the above.

We might have ended up with more and better, and maybe a
single definitive reference, except for the arrival of the
internet. The stuff available for free on the internet is
not comprehensive, but there is enough of it that most
people won't pay for recumbent related content. The IHPVA
just limps along now.

ihpva.orgihpva.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB
designs appeared to

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

driven by the objective of avoiding foot/wheel
interference. As experienced SWB riders know, this is
generally not the concern it

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

appear to be, as it only occurs during very slow speed
maneuvers and does not necessarily lead to a loss of
control. Removing this

criterion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

allows for a shorter boom that greatly improves frame
stiffness,

weight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distribution, handling and braking.

There was more to it than that. I believe there was
also quite a bit of concern about center of balance
issues as well.

Quoted message said:

All the better SWB designs from a performance
criterion have bottom brackets that are substantially
higher than seat level. From this we

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

conclude that the LWB design is a better choice for
those who suffer from foot numbness problems.

I can vouch for the above as I am one of those who
simply can't ride a recumbent with the BB much higher
than the seat due to foot numbness.

But

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even aside from that particular problem, I believer that
the seat should

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

slightly higher than the BB for ergonomic reasons having
to do with efficiency. I believe that the higher the BB
in relation to the seat,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more it detracts from power effectiveness. The only
advantage is aerodynamics and that does not make up for
the loss of power to the

pedal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This all relates to human physiology. We are not
designed by nature to

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

our legs work above our posteriors.

I don't presume to speak for DGW, but Ed's comments are
along the lines of DGW's IIRC. At the very least, DGW
thought a lower BB was more comfortable. He and Willkie
started with a higher BB and went lower. Given a lower BB,
there were lots of issues with the SWB.

Back to history for a moment: At some point in the coming
years we will be leaving the house we are in. I don't
think my collection of bike material will make the move. I
will offer it free to anyone who might provide a good home
for it and who will pay shipping, if necessary.

It is not cataloged, and stuff that should have been dated
(like bike brochures) is not. So it is a big mess, really.
It might include photos from early IHPVA races in
Indianapolis. Haven't decided about that yet.

john riley 1 at rogers dot com