3rd ed. of "The Recumbent Bicycle" -- Request for requests!

[[email protected]]

I'm publishing the 3rd edition of "The Recumbent Bicycle" book in the
next couple weeks.

If anyone has any edits or ideas of things to include, please let me
know!

I'd like to run a pic of a line of recumbents passing a paceline of
uprights in a century ride. Anyone have one?

Thanks, Jeff Potter
AllBikeMag.com
outyourbackdoor.com

 

[NYC XYZ]

Hey, cool!!!

I almost ordered the book last year, but then I read the amazon.com
reviews which said that you didn't have reviews of specific models. I
do hope you'll be including some this time!

It went from a must-buy-now to a wait-for-a-rainy-day kind of book for
me on account of that. Sure I'm interested in the history and physics
of recumbents, etc., but right now I need to know how the different
bikes compare! And I imagine most folks new to these machines would
feel this way, too.



[email protected] wrote:
> I'm publishing the 3rd edition of "The Recumbent Bicycle" book in the
> next couple weeks.
>
> If anyone has any edits or ideas of things to include, please let me
> know!
>
> I'd like to run a pic of a line of recumbents passing a paceline of
> uprights in a century ride. Anyone have one?
>
> Thanks, Jeff Potter
> AllBikeMag.com
> outyourbackdoor.com

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the interest!

There are several great places to get Buyer's Guide info out there
every year. That's more magazine/website territory.

The book does have a detailed Features Guide which one can use to
mix'n'match with whatever models come down the pike each year.

And the book does cover and show pictures of major current trends of
significance.

The main thing about the book is that it's still the one and only book
that covers all aspects of recumbent bikes. One modest book can't do
much more than that at about 200 pages for $20, including a section of
color pics.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com

 

[NYC XYZ]

[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks for the interest!
>
> There are several great places to get Buyer's Guide info out there
> every year. That's more magazine/website territory.

Well, the same logic could be applied to what the book does cover, as
well -- several sites, etc., for history and mechanics of 'bents and so
forth.

And we're not talking cars or computers here...we're talking a niche
market, recumbent bicycles, which, from the looks of it, is even
smaller than that of sea kayaking! Which is why it seems advisable to
me that a book named with the introductory and also
comprehensive-sounding title "The Recumbent Bicycle" should have a
section devoted to comparing classic models and current favorites.
Don't forget who is likely to google or look up amazon.com for such a
book. Your hard-core grognards probably already know about as much as
you do.

> The book does have a detailed Features Guide which one can use to
> mix'n'match with whatever models come down the pike each year.
>
> And the book does cover and show pictures of major current trends of
> significance.
>
> The main thing about the book is that it's still the one and only book
> that covers all aspects of recumbent bikes. One modest book can't do
> much more than that at about 200 pages for $20, including a section of
> color pics.

Yes, I understand, and like I said, I still plan on getting the book --
only just for a rainy day now, so to speak. But for a revision or new
edition, perhaps you'd want to branch out in new directions. And
charge more if you must -- those looking to get a 'bent shouldn't be
cheap-skates when it comes to a mere book, given the cost of even the
least expensive 'bents from Taiwan!

Consider, for example, a book which looks similar -- "The Folding
Kayak" -- and you'll see how newbies would be slightly disappointed by
a book which sounds as definitive as "The Recumbent Bicycle."

Come on, let's make 'bents sexy -- and we start that with marketing and
image! You've got the steak -- now you need a bit more sizzle! =)

> --JP
> outyourbackdoor.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> And we're not talking cars or computers here...we're talking a niche
> market, recumbent bicycles, which, from the looks of it, is even
> smaller than that of sea kayaking!

It's certainly smaller than sea kayaking, but has the same problems.
I've seen quite a few SK books (I'm an active SKer) and none I've looked
at get into the business of specific model reviews, tending to
concentrate on How or Where rather than What In. What a skeg does and
how it does it is more useful information than a list of current boats
supplied with skegs IMHO.

> Which is why it seems advisable to
> me that a book named with the introductory and also
> comprehensive-sounding title "The Recumbent Bicycle" should have a
> section devoted to comparing classic models and current favorites.

But "current favourites" will be out of date before the book gets to the
printers, both from a combination of new models and developments of
existing ones, so I can see the point of avoiding it. What strikes me
as more useful is the sort of general information that will allow the
reader to assess any 'bent s/he comes across, irrespective of whether
it's a home-build to a personal design or an attempt at a mass market
machine.

> Come on, let's make 'bents sexy -- and we start that with marketing and
> image!

But if your information is immediately out of date, yet presented as
comprehensive, then people will look at less than optimally sexy bikes
and think they're the current cream of the crop. Though while on the
general topic of sexiness, a picture Sam W. in the Varna breaking 80mph
on the front cover would be a bit sexier than the front of the 2nd
edition I have in my bookcase!

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> It's certainly smaller than sea kayaking, but has the same problems.
> I've seen quite a few SK books (I'm an active SKer) and none I've looked
> at get into the business of specific model reviews, tending to
> concentrate on How or Where rather than What In.

Well, I had in mind the similarly-titled "The Folding Kayak," as
implied by my comments on that.

And it's because even sea-kayaking seems, rather inexplicably, an even
larger market than recumbent bicycling, that it's possible to have
books which are more narrow in focus. But such a
definitive/introductory-sounding title as "The Recumbent Bicycle"
sounds just a bit misleading for a book that really concerns the
history and mechanics of it only. If a book was titled "The Sports
Utility Vehicle" you'd appreciate history, mechanics, etc., but you'd
also expect some catalog-like comparisons.

Again, NOT A COMPLAINT -- just some thoughts. I look forward to
purchasing the book one day...only right now, I'm too busy collecting
back-issues of "Velovision" and "Tandem and Recumbent Rider Magazine"
and "Recumbent Cyclist News!"

> What a skeg does and
> how it does it is more useful information than a list of current boats
> supplied with skegs IMHO.

Again, it's just that a newbie is likely to reach for a book which
sounds so introductory and comprehensive. Like when you take a course
titled "Ancient Greek Philosophy" which doesn't involve comparisons
between Plato and Aristotle, though it covers the development of ideas
and history....

> But "current favourites" will be out of date before the book gets to the
> printers, both from a combination of new models and developments of
> existing ones, so I can see the point of avoiding it.

I don't think the 'bent market is as revolutionary as that, now! And
the reason something would be a "current favorite" is typically because
it's valuable, which means it should remain quite a favorite for some
time to come, and a standard by which future 'bents are judged.

What it looks like to me as a newbie is that such a
comprehensive-sounding book is practically just "theory" and no "case
studies"...by which I mean that after talking about the history and
engineering behind recumbent bicycles, it'd be nice -- and rather true
to the title, or what expectations such a title is likely to arouse --
that we see the application of it all in specific examples...to wit,
"classics" and "current favorites."

Hell, maybe it's just my own individual parsing faculties...but I swear
"The Recumbent Bicycle" almost sounds like "The Recumbent Bible"....

> What strikes me
> as more useful is the sort of general information that will allow the
> reader to assess any 'bent s/he comes across, irrespective of whether
> it's a home-build to a personal design or an attempt at a mass market
> machine.

There is the notion of "necessary but not sufficient"...I'd say that
it's necessary to have such knowledge as the book propounds, but not
sufficient because one must have "case studies" in addition to the
"theory"...it's like learning English by reading dictionary or
something...knowing the history and mechanics of recumbent bicycles can
only make for a more informed consumer, but being shown how that
history and how those mechanics inform classic and current designs is
closing the matter full-circle.

IOW, as it stands, a much more accurate -- and thus helpful -- title
would be "Recumbent Bicycle History and Mechanics." If that sounds
like too much of a sub-title, and a catchier one is desired, then maybe
"Sit Back and Enjoy the Ride: Recumbent Bicycle History and Mechanics"
or "Recumbent Bicycles for Geniuses: Evolution and Physics."

> But if your information is immediately out of date, yet presented as
> comprehensive, then people will look at less than optimally sexy bikes
> and think they're the current cream of the crop.

It simply can't be out-of-date that soon, given the apparent state of
this market.

Also, "classics" by definition don't go out-of-date. Neither can
"current favorites" in this market, if you think about it -- what could
only make them a favorite for such a discerning crowd are details which
can only be adopted across-the-board, thus becoming the standard for
'bents to come....

> Though while on the
> general topic of sexiness, a picture Sam W. in the Varna breaking 80mph
> on the front cover would be a bit sexier than the front of the 2nd
> edition I have in my bookcase!

Though not my idea of sexy, I'd rather meet this on the road than the
dour JimmyMac:

http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/service/farbtabelle_e.html

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> And it's because even sea-kayaking seems, rather inexplicably, an even
> larger market than recumbent bicycling, that it's possible to have
> books which are more narrow in focus.

It has books narrower in focus because the subject is narrower in focus.
Sea kayaks are far more functionally limited within the general class
of paddle driven water craft than recumbents are within "cycles".

> But such a
> definitive/introductory-sounding title as "The Recumbent Bicycle"
> sounds just a bit misleading for a book that really concerns the
> history and mechanics of it only. If a book was titled "The Sports
> Utility Vehicle" you'd appreciate history, mechanics, etc., but you'd
> also expect some catalog-like comparisons.

Would I? And again, SUVs are more functionally limited than recumbents.
A BikeE has basically nothing much in common with a Varna Diablo aside
from having the crank in front of the rider and being pedal powered with
2 wheels.

> Again, it's just that a newbie is likely to reach for a book which
> sounds so introductory and comprehensive. Like when you take a course
> titled "Ancient Greek Philosophy" which doesn't involve comparisons
> between Plato and Aristotle, though it covers the development of ideas
> and history....

The existing edition does use a lot of Real World examples, it's not
just devoid of Actual Bikes. But while Ancient Greek philosophy is all
done now, recumbent bikes are in ongoing development and what's on the
market today isn't the same as tomorrow. Since a book can't keep
perfectly up to date with current individual models I'd say it's better
to leave that to magazines and websites and take the space available to
do what books do better.

> I don't think the 'bent market is as revolutionary as that, now!

Ah, but it is! It's got dozens of small, inventive companies pushing
their own designs and ideas with no design constraints.

> What it looks like to me as a newbie is that such a
> comprehensive-sounding book is practically just "theory" and no "case
> studies"

The existing edition has quite a few case studies, so don't worry. What
it doesn't do is try to give a comprehensive review section.

> It simply can't be out-of-date that soon, given the apparent state of
> this market.

It'll be out of date within the year, there's a lot of innovation and
change going on. Since the last edition, for example, Vision and BikeE
have disappeared and the low racer market has been shaken up by
Velokraft, etc. etc.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the further thoughts, guys!

I'm a bit worried that Pete thinks Sam hidden in a speeding Varna is
sexier than Laurie in lycra giving a smile! : )

Pete does have it right that as it is the book presents several models
representing the wide range of approaches to the concept. But the
Profiles are meant to show approaches/range rather than to detail each
model. They're more like company profiles, actually. And they're not
really meant to sell the particular company: they're just overviews of
the citybike attitude, the racebike builder, the mass-marketer, etc.
The book does have lots of photos of recent/classic models with fairly
detailed captions. But I agree with NYC that it would be neat to
briefly profile a half dozen of the "classics."

I note that History and Mechanics are just 2 of the 6 chapters. NYC,
I'm curious where you got the 2-topic impression. I want to make sure
that those considering the book find it easy to know the areas that the
book covers. To me, just History and Mechanics would be quite
incomplete.

Here's the basic chapter rundown:

1. History
2. City/Tour
3. Sport
4. Science
5. Design, Features, Options (and their effects on handling,etc.), Case
Studies
6. Fairings & Homebuilding
Appendix of Resources, Builders, Dealers

--JP

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> It has books narrower in focus because the subject is narrower in focus.
> Sea kayaks are far more functionally limited within the general class
> of paddle driven water craft than recumbents are within "cycles".

I'm not sure how your points about "functional limits" relate to my
feeling that a book so definitively-entitled should have a "buyer's
guide" sort of section.

> Would I? And again, SUVs are more functionally limited than recumbents.
> A BikeE has basically nothing much in common with a Varna Diablo aside
> from having the crank in front of the rider and being pedal powered with
> 2 wheels.

So wouldn't that make for interesting reading on design choices, etc.?

> The existing edition does use a lot of Real World examples, it's not
> just devoid of Actual Bikes. But while Ancient Greek philosophy is all
> done now, recumbent bikes are in ongoing development and what's on the
> market today isn't the same as tomorrow. Since a book can't keep
> perfectly up to date with current individual models I'd say it's better
> to leave that to magazines and websites and take the space available to
> do what books do better.

But if he's gonna bring out new editions anyway, why not, really?
Given that there's no such *book* such as what I'm proposing his third
edition should be, wouldn't that be a great "marketing opportunity" for
him? A one-stop-shop sort of thing.

And I must respectfully disagree again that 'bent designs are so
revolutionary as to make a mini buyer's guide sort of section obselete,
necessarily. Moreover, classics by definition are timeless, I
reiterate.

> Ah, but it is! It's got dozens of small, inventive companies pushing
> their own designs and ideas with no design constraints.

Well, I suppose we differ over semantics, then. I'm thinking of
"revolutionary" in the sense of upright vis-a-vis recumbent -- a
"global" sense, so to speak -- whereas you may be referring to
something along the lines of USS/OSS or suspension/non-suspension --
more "localized."

And again, even granting your point, it seems that if new editions will
be brought out anyway, why not? Taking your logic, science textbooks
wouldn't be published at all!

> The existing edition has quite a few case studies, so don't worry. What
> it doesn't do is try to give a comprehensive review section.

Well, whatever whichever edition contains, I'll gladly purchase
it...only not before I buy all the back-issues of different magazines
and newsletters for stuff which, had the book contained them, I would
have spent the money on the book first!

> It'll be out of date within the year, there's a lot of innovation and
> change going on. Since the last edition, for example, Vision and BikeE
> have disappeared and the low racer market has been shaken up by
> Velokraft, etc. etc.

Well, yes, if you mean businesses going out of business and/or
restructuring...but I don't see how that affects the utility of a mini
buyer's guide section, since the book is also about 'bent history,
init? Books on computer programming languages would be similarly
useless and the cornucopia of choices poorer if publishers were to
worry about obsolescence.

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks for the further thoughts, guys!
>
> I'm a bit worried that Pete thinks Sam hidden in a speeding Varna is
> sexier than Laurie in lycra giving a smile! : )

You need to find the prettiest girl in town and pay her $75 to sit on
your favorite 'bent for the cover.

> Pete does have it right that as it is the book presents several models
> representing the wide range of approaches to the concept. But the
> Profiles are meant to show approaches/range rather than to detail each
> model. They're more like company profiles, actually. And they're not
> really meant to sell the particular company: they're just overviews of
> the citybike attitude, the racebike builder, the mass-marketer, etc.
> The book does have lots of photos of recent/classic models with fairly
> detailed captions. But I agree with NYC that it would be neat to
> briefly profile a half dozen of the "classics."

You've probably read the amazon.com reviews. They all applaud your
work, IIRC, but some were helpful enough to note for newbies like me
that there won't be any "quick-answer-immediate-advice" to buying a
'bent. Sure, the theoretical concepts are all there, which when
digested and integrated into one's general knowledge can only help with
regards to picking out a 'bent. But "The Recumbent Bicycle" just
sounds so akin to "The Recumbent Bible" -- and your chapter breakdown
below demonstrates just such a categorical ambition -- that it seems
like a slight oversight to not take note of a wider range of models
from a Consumer Reports POV.

> I note that History and Mechanics are just 2 of the 6 chapters. NYC,
> I'm curious where you got the 2-topic impression. I want to make sure
> that those considering the book find it easy to know the areas that the
> book covers. To me, just History and Mechanics would be quite
> incomplete.

I'm relying on the amazon.com reviews. I understand that they are
hap-dash, but they are all there is to go on, and they seem, judging
from this conversation, accurate in warning newbies that no "buyer's
guide" is included.

> Here's the basic chapter rundown:
>
> 1. History
> 2. City/Tour
> 3. Sport
> 4. Science
> 5. Design, Features, Options (and their effects on handling,etc.), Case
> Studies
> 6. Fairings & Homebuilding
> Appendix of Resources, Builders, Dealers
>
> --JP

Sounds most reasonable -- but 7's a lucky number, and a nice last
chapter to round-out all the "theory" would be "field reports" a la
'bent mags and newsletters of *your* own unique individual take on the
classics and some current favorites. After all, you must differ in
some respect to some of the reviews with regard to certain models?

Of course, I understand that what I'm proposing probably means a major
addition to the book, but consider that you have the market to yourself
right now...someone doing an amazon.com search, like me, only finds
your book, basically...you'd do 'em a real service if you provided a
one-stop-shop!

Again, not a complaint -- I'll be buying the book soon enough. It's
just that I would have had it already were I not too busy looking up
different mags and newsletters (and trolling ARBR, LOL!) for the stuff
which your definitive and even rather introductory-sounding book could
have had!

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> I'm not sure how your points about "functional limits" relate to my
> feeling that a book so definitively-entitled should have a "buyer's
> guide" sort of section.

What's easier, a buyers' guide to SUVs or a buyers guide to all motor
vehicles for all purposes?

> So wouldn't that make for interesting reading on design choices, etc.?

Yes, but the point is that you've got a few hundred other things to
cover as well. The book as it is already covers design approaches,
trying to tie them to a comprehensive list of available machinery is
just making your task impossible.

> But if he's gonna bring out new editions anyway, why not, really?

Because magazines and the web do the job better, so why spend all the
effort doing a worse job?

> Given that there's no such *book* such as what I'm proposing his third
> edition should be, wouldn't that be a great "marketing opportunity" for
> him? A one-stop-shop sort of thing.

Only if it's much better than athe existing book plus volatile
resources, such as magazines and web. I doubt it would be, no matter
/how/ much effort is put in.

> And I must respectfully disagree again that 'bent designs are so
> revolutionary as to make a mini buyer's guide sort of section obselete,
> necessarily.

When you get your Velovisions you'll find buyers guides. Last one was
recumbent bikes. They'll be doing another within a couple of years
because things will have changed a lot. That's what magazines are /for/.

> Well, yes, if you mean businesses going out of business and/or
> restructuring...but I don't see how that affects the utility of a mini
> buyer's guide section

Because a buyers guide sending you to Vision, one of the US's biggest
and most repsected manufacturers, would be pointless because they're out
of business now. Telling you about the recumbent trike market in
Germany would have included Stein, who've now gone, but would be lucky
to include the Scorpion, which /might/ be a major player. And so on.

> since the book is also about 'bent history,
> init? Books on computer programming languages would be similarly
> useless and the cornucopia of choices poorer if publishers were to
> worry about obsolescence.

ANSI C is still the same now as it was 10 years ago, probably the same
as 20 years ago bar very minor fiddles.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm a bit worried that Pete thinks Sam hidden in a speeding Varna is
> sexier than Laurie in lycra giving a smile! : )

More that the Varna is a sexier bike than the LWB scaffold collection
Laurie's riding... The existing colour plate of the Varna would, IMHO,
make a catchier cover, though mileages will vary.

By all means have an attractive smiling rider, but how about having them
ride something that looks a bit cooler? My good lady on her Nazca
Fiero, complete with Radical touring bags, makes for a much better "I
want one of those!" view than the bike currently gracing the front,
though admittedly I *am* biased...

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> You've probably read the amazon.com reviews. They all applaud your
> work, IIRC, but some were helpful enough to note for newbies like me
> that there won't be any "quick-answer-immediate-advice" to buying a
> 'bent. Sure, the theoretical concepts are all there, which when
> digested and integrated into one's general knowledge can only help with
> regards to picking out a 'bent. But "The Recumbent Bicycle" just
> sounds so akin to "The Recumbent Bible" -- and your chapter breakdown
> below demonstrates just such a categorical ambition -- that it seems
> like a slight oversight to not take note of a wider range of models
> from a Consumer Reports POV.

Our differences here come back to what I've said several times, that any
amount of paper information is only of limited use in selecting a 'bent.
You've already seemed to have decided on a Streetmachine GTe, though
you might find in practice you just don't find the seat comfy, and the
only way you'll find out is by sitting on one.

There is no quick answer, but the immediate answer is try as many as you
possibly can. My gf made a big spreadsheet of Vital Info, meticulously
researching available models. She ended up buying one she'd ruled out
and ruling out the contents of her shortlist based on actually trying
them out. The importance of trying things is difficult to overstate
because in practice some of the bikes just feel /so/ different to one
another, far more so than DFs.

> Sounds most reasonable -- but 7's a lucky number, and a nice last
> chapter to round-out all the "theory" would be "field reports" a la
> 'bent mags and newsletters of *your* own unique individual take on the
> classics and some current favorites. After all, you must differ in
> some respect to some of the reviews with regard to certain models?

Well, like I've been saying, I can sit on some highly regarded machines
and think "I don't really feel this is the one for me, it doesn't feel
right for *my* physiology and *my* take on a bike's Magic X Factor".
That information is of no use to you, though it's vital to me.

I ride a Streetmachine because I love it. I think it's a great touring
bike. My gf wanted a touring bike, but didn't really feel at home on
the Streetmachine. It's just down to personal physiology and wants, not
objective quantifiables that are needed for buyers' guides.

> your book, basically...you'd do 'em a real service if you provided a
> one-stop-shop!

But only if it really /was/ a one stop shop, rather than something that
just looked like one. The best way to select a cycle is to try them out
in person, not read one person's opinion on a limited selection.

> Again, not a complaint -- I'll be buying the book soon enough. It's
> just that I would have had it already were I not too busy looking up
> different mags and newsletters (and trolling ARBR, LOL!) for the stuff
> which your definitive and even rather introductory-sounding book could
> have had!

But it couldn't. For example, the brand new Speedmachine is, well,
brand new. So no chance to get a review of it into a current book.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Prove it. Post a photo.

=)



Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> More that the Varna is a sexier bike than the LWB scaffold collection
> Laurie's riding... The existing colour plate of the Varna would, IMHO,
> make a catchier cover, though mileages will vary.
>
> By all means have an attractive smiling rider, but how about having them
> ride something that looks a bit cooler? My good lady on her Nazca
> Fiero, complete with Radical touring bags, makes for a much better "I
> want one of those!" view than the bike currently gracing the front,
> though admittedly I *am* biased...
>
> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> Our differences here come back to what I've said several times, that any
> amount of paper information is only of limited use in selecting a 'bent.

Yes, it's true, we have different visions of what this book ought to
look like, though I still find it a little odd that we could -- after
all, we both accept history texts alongside academic monographs
alongside popular accounts alongside periodicals alongside a newsgroup
like soc.history.wwii.moderated., and no one faults any "cross-over"
between one kind of resource and another.

> You've already seemed to have decided on a Streetmachine GTe, though
> you might find in practice you just don't find the seat comfy, and the
> only way you'll find out is by sitting on one.

Yes, I hope to gain some first real impressions this very weekend!

> There is no quick answer, but the immediate answer is try as many as you
> possibly can. My gf made a big spreadsheet of Vital Info, meticulously
> researching available models. She ended up buying one she'd ruled out
> and ruling out the contents of her shortlist based on actually trying
> them out. The importance of trying things is difficult to overstate
> because in practice some of the bikes just feel /so/ different to one
> another, far more so than DFs.

Oh, yes, I understand...I know that, after all's said and done, all
this chatter is just fun and games -- kinda like talking about women
and actually doing one!

> Well, like I've been saying, I can sit on some highly regarded machines
> and think "I don't really feel this is the one for me, it doesn't feel
> right for *my* physiology and *my* take on a bike's Magic X Factor".
> That information is of no use to you, though it's vital to me.

Not exactly no use, because it certainly is interesting -- viz., your
posts all this time. Similarly, if the author of something like "The
Recumbent Bicycle" has gained my "trust" as a reader somehow, I'd be
very interested in knowing what he thought of the SMGTe compared to the
Challenge Mistral or Seiran, etc.

> I ride a Streetmachine because I love it. I think it's a great touring
> bike. My gf wanted a touring bike, but didn't really feel at home on
> the Streetmachine. It's just down to personal physiology and wants, not
> objective quantifiables that are needed for buyers' guides.

Of course, an army can train for years, have the best equipment, food,
pay, and conditions, and still lose a war, etc.

But you can't say, exactly, that the training and other expenses have
been for naught.

A buyer's guide isn't some divine document. But it is a guide, such as
you have been for me.

Maybe for this new edition the author should have you write a foreword
or something!

> But only if it really /was/ a one stop shop, rather than something that
> just looked like one. The best way to select a cycle is to try them out
> in person, not read one person's opinion on a limited selection.

Yes, but one also needs to have the proper context for one's own
impressions.

For example, I NEVER knew that bicycling can be comfortable! You can
do a google on me...I was shocked that bikes were actually fitted to
the individual riders! Never had heard of it, and I rode and rode and
rode.

Or, as another case of "WTF?!" -- I never learned to use gears until
maybe my eighth year of cycling! Never thought to question cycling as
a necessarily uncomfortable activity.

So, at least in my own case -- LOL -- first impressions might not mean
much without the proper "context," as I call it...some understanding of
how what I feel compares against what's out there and expected, if you
follow my meaning.

> But it couldn't. For example, the brand new Speedmachine is, well,
> brand new. So no chance to get a review of it into a current book.

Fine, but what it could have had would have been a good start. As I
implied, I'm only here bothering y'all 'cause I had no book to flip
through!

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Speaking of which, you'd been quite a help...do you want me to
"sponsor" your sig on my bike? LOL -- put it on the pennant or
something!

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Prove it. Post a photo.

Follow my sig to my web pages, go to the Cycle pages and then into
the Tour Diary...

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> A buyer's guide isn't some divine document. But it is a guide, such as
> you have been for me.

You're right it isn't, sadly it is often taken as if it is. Lots
of people, quite understandably, want to know what The Best of
something is, but it's not that simple.

In the UK there's an outdoor gear reveiwer called Chris Townsend
who is very good at his job. He makes a point of saying /why/ he
thinks what he thinks and the limits to which his views need to be
taken in context of. He always makes a point of saying how
personal fit is important, especially with boots. And people I
know in outdoor stores dread customers coming in and saying "I want
X", and when they suggest alternatives to try as well they get "But
Chris Townsend said X was best" in a "you're trying to palm me off
with some sort of rubbish" tone of voice.

> Fine, but what it could have had would have been a good start. As I
> implied, I'm only here bothering y'all 'cause I had no book to flip
> through!

People like me on Usenet really don't mind being bothered if it's
by people like yourself who are displaying apparently genuine
interest combined with manners. And asking a pile of folk on
Usenet is, IMHO, a much better thing than reading a single reference.

I'll leave you with a quote from the Buyers' Guide from the last
issue of VeloVision:

"It's all too easy to over-research recumbents! You'll find info
and opinion galore on the internet, and even magazines like this
one can be a distraction from what's important: actually trying
them out! It really is a good idea to get some 'seat time' on a
wide variety of bikes and trikes before looking into it too closely
and developing preconceived notions of what might be right for you"

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Thanks again for the interesting exchange. I do believe I understand
where you're coming from -- and I guess after all's said and done, the
very last thought I have at this moment is..."is was just an idea." =)



Peter Clinch wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > A buyer's guide isn't some divine document. But it is a guide, such as
> > you have been for me.
>
> You're right it isn't, sadly it is often taken as if it is. Lots
> of people, quite understandably, want to know what The Best of
> something is, but it's not that simple.
>
> In the UK there's an outdoor gear reveiwer called Chris Townsend
> who is very good at his job. He makes a point of saying /why/ he
> thinks what he thinks and the limits to which his views need to be
> taken in context of. He always makes a point of saying how
> personal fit is important, especially with boots. And people I
> know in outdoor stores dread customers coming in and saying "I want
> X", and when they suggest alternatives to try as well they get "But
> Chris Townsend said X was best" in a "you're trying to palm me off
> with some sort of rubbish" tone of voice.
>
> > Fine, but what it could have had would have been a good start. As I
> > implied, I'm only here bothering y'all 'cause I had no book to flip
> > through!
>
> People like me on Usenet really don't mind being bothered if it's
> by people like yourself who are displaying apparently genuine
> interest combined with manners. And asking a pile of folk on
> Usenet is, IMHO, a much better thing than reading a single reference.
>
> I'll leave you with a quote from the Buyers' Guide from the last
> issue of VeloVision:
>
> "It's all too easy to over-research recumbents! You'll find info
> and opinion galore on the internet, and even magazines like this
> one can be a distraction from what's important: actually trying
> them out! It really is a good idea to get some 'seat time' on a
> wide variety of bikes and trikes before looking into it too closely
> and developing preconceived notions of what might be right for you"
>
> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> People like me on Usenet really don't mind being bothered if it's by
> people like yourself who are displaying apparently genuine interest
> combined with manners. And asking a pile of folk on Usenet is, IMHO, a
> much better thing than reading a single reference.

Pete here reminds me of old Cletus Lee. As long as he can remain uppermost
in the relationship (him pontificating and you listening) he is happy as a
lark. But the minute you beg to differ with him you will find out what a
jerk he is. The first thing he will do is kill file you, but to his credit
he does not continue to bad mouth you like Cletus Lee did.

But his signature below tells us all we will ever want to know about him.
Every time I see it I go into a rage. I could forget about him if it weren't
for his signature. It is without a doubt the stupidest signature I have ever
seen on any newsgroup. I sometimes thinks he posts as much as he does just
so he can shove his confounded signature down our throats.

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Why can't he get himself a signature like mine. It is modest and unassuming
and all it does is gently remind you of how Great I am.

Regards,

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

 

[NYC XYZ]

I propose that the author include in his 3rd Edition an Appendix on
your suggestions!

Heck, you should do the foreword or afterword and him whatever you're
not. =)



Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
> > People like me on Usenet really don't mind being bothered if it's by
> > people like yourself who are displaying apparently genuine interest
> > combined with manners. And asking a pile of folk on Usenet is, IMHO, a
> > much better thing than reading a single reference.
>
> Pete here reminds me of old Cletus Lee. As long as he can remain uppermost
> in the relationship (him pontificating and you listening) he is happy as a
> lark. But the minute you beg to differ with him you will find out what a
> jerk he is. The first thing he will do is kill file you, but to his credit
> he does not continue to bad mouth you like Cletus Lee did.
>
> But his signature below tells us all we will ever want to know about him.
> Every time I see it I go into a rage. I could forget about him if it weren't
> for his signature. It is without a doubt the stupidest signature I have ever
> seen on any newsgroup. I sometimes thinks he posts as much as he does just
> so he can shove his confounded signature down our throats.
>
> > 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> Why can't he get himself a signature like mine. It is modest and unassuming
> and all it does is gently remind you of how Great I am.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota