CTC email

Nick Kew said:

Bents are costly and take up lots of space. Not to mention
fragile (from Guy's accounts of his woes), and a potential
maintenance nightmare due to use of nonstandard parts.

My bent's built like a tank. I bent the rear dropout a few
weeks ago. But under the circumstances I would probably also
have bent the rear dropout on an upright, had I been riding
one. My friendly neighbourhood framebuilder had no problem
bending it back again (the steel frame on the SMGT was a
major selling point for me for this very reason).

I /did/ need to buy a new part [1]. It was so standard that
I was able to buy it from Halfords (LBS was shut).

[1] Rear derailleur

--
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

Peter Clinch [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

But are quite possibly not. An Ultra Galaxy or serious
Thorn, Roberts etc. will cost you a similar sort of amount
to various recumbent tourers. I can easily source a
serious upright racer that costs more than a Baron but
doesn't go as fast on the flats into a headwind with the
same power input.

Recumbents (Or certainly, those I've looked at) seem to
start at a much higher basic price than uprights. This may
be a reflection of the build quality, but it does mean that
the lower end of the market is not catered for.

Quoted message said:

When I had my Orbit regeared with a triple, it was done in
the LBS using standard parts. What generally wears out on
bikes? Is it the seat or frame, or the transmission? Non
standard transmission parts on my transmission are a chain
idler, and the bike still works if it's worn out, it's
just a bit noisy. FUD again. Work I've had done on the
SMGT was a wheel fine truing, done at the LBS, and HS-33s
fitted. I did have that done at Kinetics but there's
nothing particularly magic about HS-33s that the local
shop couldn't have done it, mounting as they do on the
standard brake bosses my bike comes with.

Quoted message said:

If you have USS, how does the linkage mechanism work.

FUD. I do have USS. There is no linkage mechanism aside
from a standard handlebar stem.

Is the rotation point of the stem the steerer tube? The ones
I've seen (online) seem to have a more complex system than
this, that separates the steering centre from the steerer
tube. I can think of two "easy" ways of doing this, but
neither would really be plausible to repair with standard
LBS components.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to repair or replace this with easily
located equipment. Guy... why has it taken so long to
get your Stinger back on the road?

It isn't possible to repair the steering linkage on my
bike because there is no such thing. It has taken Guy's
bike so long to get back on the road because it needed a
new frame.

"the new frame has a larger headset, hence new steerer and
front forks, which means that the rear brake pipe needs to
be 3" longer than the old one. Messrs. Hope have been
commissioned to make a new one, which should be ready early
next week, so after about two months consigned to wedgiedom
I'll be back on my 'bent from next weekend, I hope."

And it has had other issues.

Quoted message said:

I wasn't really saying it was, I was saying that
conservatism and FUD are principle reasons for people not
to consider moving away from Windows just as they're
principle reasons not to move away from upright bikes.

This was what I took issue with though. I agree that it is
a principle reason for sticking with Windoze, but there
are other more pertinent issues associated with the switch
to bentdom.

Quoted message said:

Also note that "a principle reason" is not the same thing
"the reason", and if you thought it was meant to be a
complete, serious and direct analogy you were reading a
bit much into a joke getting things back on cycling...

Didn't clock the joke... more smileys please :-). I do hope
that bents will follow the Linux curve. When I started
playing with Linux, there were few distributions, and
installing it meant playing around with arcane text commands
for hours on end. A steadily increasing user-base has lead
to some great "home" distributions such as Suze and Mandrake
which help encourage more people. Perhaps as bents develop a
larger user base, they too will decrease in price (Mass-
production savings) and thus we'll see more of them.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Recumbents (Or certainly, those I've looked at) seem to
start at a much=

=20

Quoted message said:

higher basic price than uprights. This may be a reflection
of the build=

=20

Quoted message said:

quality, but it does mean that the lower end of the market
is not=20 catered for.

They are a specialist niche market. An obvious parallel is
that 'cross=20 bikes, downhill MTBs and track bikes start at
a much higher basic price, =

because they're only sold to pretty serious people for whom
there isn't=20 much point in cheap 'n cheerful. Though it is
for different reasons. Not many people have any real use=20
for a track bike, so they don't sell well. With 'bents,
first up not=20 many people know about them (I get a /lot/
of people saying they've=20 never seen anything like mine)
and if they do then if the price issue=20 isn't a problem
(and it's less likely to be among serious cyclists who=20 do
come across them and know a bit about them) conservatism
tends to be=20 the next major hurdle. And it's quite
understandable: "I have =A31,500, =

do I buy a better version of my current setup which I *know*
will be=20 better, or do I take a leap in the dark at
something I don't really know =

much about with that large pile of money?". Most people come
down on=20 the first option, and I can't say I blame them.

Quoted message said:

Is the rotation point of the stem the steerer tube? The
ones I've seen =

Quoted message said:

(online) seem to have a more complex system than this,
that separates=20 the steering centre from the steerer
tube.=20

Yes. If you rode Eddie's it works the same way. USS linkages
are=20 fairly common, but are basically a rod which I don't
see should be too=20 hard to work at, though I also don't
see why it's likely to give any=20 trouble.

Quoted message said:

"the new frame has a larger headset, hence new steerer and
front forks,=

=20

Quoted message said:

which means that the rear brake pipe needs to be 3" longer
than the old=

=20

Quoted message said:

one. Messrs. Hope have been commissioned to make a new
one, which=20 should be ready early next week, so after
about two months consigned to=

=20

Quoted message said:

wedgiedom I'll be back on my 'bent from next weekend,
I hope."
=20
And it has had other issues.=20

But they basically come down to the replacement not being
like for like. =

If my Streetmachine frame needs replacing then it'll be
the same frame =

it has now (aside from being a slightly different colour),
so it=20 wouldn't be so much of a problem. See the other
thread about waiting=20 ages and ages for a new Galaxy: if
you need a new frame for a Super-G,=20 how long would that
take right now?

Quoted message said:

Didn't clock the joke... more smileys please :-). I do
hope that bents =

Quoted message said:

will follow the Linux curve. When I started playing with
Linux, there=20 were few distributions, and installing it
meant playing around with=20 arcane text commands for
hours on end. A steadily increasing user-base =

Quoted message said:

has lead to some great "home" distributions such as Suze
and Mandrake=20 which help encourage more people. Perhaps
as bents develop a larger use=

r=20

Quoted message said:

base, they too will decrease in price (Mass-production
savings) and thu=

s=20

Quoted message said:

we'll see more of them.

Chicken and egg thing, unfortunately. Hopefully the Giant
EZB will make =

some inroads into the utility market (saw quite a few in the
NL) and=20 start breaking enough barriers that someone like
Giant who can do=20 economies of scale can justify making a
more downmarket "proper" 'bent.=20 But at the moment a cheap
'bent is a bit like a cheap Thorn. There=20 are cheap/er/
models, but you need economies of scale for really mass=20
market. Software needs nothing but time to make, while
strong metal=20 tubes and precision gearing mechanisms will
always cost Real Money for=20 the materials as well. And
it'll take longer in the UK than anywhere with a real
cycling=20 culture. I get laughed at on the Brompton because
it has small wheels.=20 There isn't much hope for people
buying things en masse for rational=20 reasons in such a
climate :-(

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382
660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44
1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Jon Senior said:

I do hope that bents will follow the Linux curve. When I
started playing with Linux, there were few distributions,
and installing it meant playing around with arcane text
commands for hours on end. A steadily increasing user-base
has lead to some great "home" distributions such as Suze
and Mandrake which help encourage more people. Perhaps as
bents develop a larger user base, they too will decrease
in price (Mass-production savings) and thus we'll see more
of them.

I think it's happening. They've certainly become more and
more common since I first discovered them 10 years ago,
particularly over the last couple of years.

Although bents may not be cheaper than they were back then,
ISTM that you get more for your money. And there now seems
to be a reasonable second hand market, which can't be bad.

--
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

Danny Colyer [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

I think it's happening. They've certainly become more and
more common=20 since I first discovered them 10 years ago,
particularly over the last=20 couple of years.
=20
Although bents may not be cheaper than they were back
then, ISTM that=20 you get more for your money. And there
now seems to be a reasonable=20 second hand market, which
can't be bad.

The Senior "Homebuild" bent is currently at the planning
stage. Given I=20 will be doing a spot of welding, I may
have to invest in the helmet,=20 knee and elbow pads... or
possibly the downhilling armour.

The aim to get bent (hmm) for <=A3400 all in.

If I ever manage to get the project off the ground, I'll put
up some web=20 pages.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

If I ever manage to get the project off the ground, I'll
put up some web pages.

A flying bent! Ambitious

Tony ;-)

Jon Senior said:

The aim to get bent (hmm) for <=A3400 all in.

You can already get an off the peg for 500, the HPVel Wavey.
And if=20 you've got a donor bike the Dutchbikes kit comes
in at a fair bit less.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382
660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44
1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden]=20 says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior wrote:
=20

Quoted message said:

The aim to get bent (hmm) for <=A3400 all in.

=20
You can already get an off the peg for 500, the HPVel
Wavey. And if=20 you've got a donor bike the Dutchbikes
kit comes in at a fair bit less.

Funnily enough, the basic design is a rip-off of the
Dutchbikes kit.=20 When I've priced it all up, I'll know
whether I can make it for less. If=20 I can build the frame
myself, I also then have the option of USS and=20 front
suspension. I was looking at the same price bracket for
the=20 Dutchbikes kit, including getting a donor bike, but
this way I get a=20 daft project to do.

Jon

In article <[email hidden]>, junk@raven-
family.com says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

If I ever manage to get the project off the ground, I'll
put up some web pages.

A flying bent! Ambitious

Just needs wings. Apparently, someone has done the maths,
and concluded that it is possible to build a HP Helicopter.
The only requirement is a person capable of producing 400W
for 45 seconds (The time constraint is required to prove
that the vehicle is airbourne and not just bouncing!).

Jon

On Fri, 7 May 2004 09:51:16 +0100, Jon Senior

jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

In article <[email hidden]>, junk@raven-
family.com says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

If I ever manage to get the project off the ground,
I'll put up some

web

Quoted message said:

pages.

A flying bent! Ambitious

Just needs wings. Apparently, someone has done the maths,
and concluded that it is possible to build a HP
Helicopter. The only requirement is a person capable of
producing 400W for 45 seconds

Isn't this a bit like saying HP vehicles of any sort are
possible if only human beings could produce more power for a
sustained time?

Quoted message said:

(The time constraint is required to prove that the vehicle
is airbourne and not just bouncing!).

Okay, this has an engine but I wouldn't mind a go in one...

rexfeatures.com449633Open ↗

Colin

Jon Senior said:

Just needs wings. Apparently, someone has done the maths,
and concluded that it is possible to build a HP
Helicopter. The only requirement is a person capable of
producing 400W for 45 seconds (The time constraint is
required to prove that the vehicle is airbourne and not
just bouncing!).

Two HP helichopters have already been built and "flown" -
one in Japan and one at Cal Poly. However, they only go up
and down, and not very far at that. The HP helichopter which
can actually go places is considerably less likely than,
say, jet packs for all, meals in pill form or the return of
the Austin Maxi.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Jon Senior said:

Just needs wings. Apparently, someone has done the maths,
and concluded that it is possible to build a HP
Helicopter. The only requirement is a person capable of
producing 400W for 45 seconds

... and a 300ft cliff ;-)

Tony

Jon Senior said:

I can build the frame myself, I also then have the option
of USS and front suspension.

Front sus on its own isn't that much of a win, it appears.
Most designs that only do one wheel usually favour the rear.
Another alternative, probably better, is to suspend the seat
to some extent which is how the PDQ and the new Windcheetahs
do it. The Wavey has optional front sus, but in a review (in
C+ IIRC) the folks doing the tests reckoned the seat sus on
the PDQ was rather better. If you avoid a hard shell seat
there's less need for sus anyway (plus it's generally
cheaper and lighter). Never particularly missed it on the
old Orbit Crystal, and what goes for some sort of standard
pattern on US 'bents is soft seat and no sus.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_dot_co_dot_uk.remove> wrote:

: Apologies... I had my figures wrong. The actual value is
: nearer 800W. Apparently the "output" of most sprinters is
: around 600W. Back to steroids I think!

Max output of sprinters is rather more than that. ~2000W for
a couple of secs for track sprints.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Isn't this a bit like saying HP vehicles of any sort are
possible if only human beings could produce more power for
a sustained time?

400W is actually very close to possible at the minute. A
suitable guinea pig and some serious steroids should make it
a reality.

Quoted message said:

Okay, this has an engine but I wouldn't mind a go in
one...

rexfeatures.com449633Open ↗

I find the idea of the average American commuting on one of
these marginally terrifying. The only upside is that they
probably start dying in serious numbers.

Jon

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_dot_co_dot_uk.remove> wrote:

: 400W is actually very close to possible at the minute. A
: suitable guinea pig and some serious steroids should make
: it a reality.

400W is perfectly possible - Lance Armstrong can
produce >400W for an hour. As did Chris Boardman during
his hour record.

I can't mind.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

I can build the frame myself, I also then have the
option of USS and front suspension.

Front sus on its own isn't that much of a win, it appears.
Most designs that only do one wheel usually favour the
rear. Another alternative, probably better, is to suspend
the seat to some extent which is how the PDQ and the new
Windcheetahs do it. The Wavey has optional front sus, but
in a review (in C+ IIRC) the folks doing the tests
reckoned the seat sus on the PDQ was rather better. If you
avoid a hard shell seat there's less need for sus anyway
(plus it's generally cheaper and lighter). Never
particularly missed it on the old Orbit Crystal, and what
goes for some sort of standard pattern on US 'bents is
soft seat and no sus.

The plan was rear sus a la Dutchbikes, and front sus from a
cheap (To be replaced one day) 20" fork (See Kinetics). The
reason for not just suspending the seat was a concern over
power. I didn't want the seat to move when bracing the
shoulders. A small amount of thought (I do manage it
occasionally), suggested making the pivot point at the
shoulders. That way I can maintain a more rigid frame
(Easier to build) and get the seat closer to the rear wheel.
The reasoning behind front suspension is the observation
(from others) that small wheels do not perform so well over
rough ground (ie. any of the roads in Scotland!). I was
hoping that even a cheap unit, might smooth out the bumps
and thus improve the handling.

I'm also toying with the idea of the decoupled chain. Single
ring at the front, triple (or quadruple) behind the rider
which links via a separate chain to the rear. The other
possibility, depending on costs is SRAM Dualdrive, but I'd
really like to see one in action first. I was never a big
fan of twistgrip shifting.

Jon (There is occasionally a method in my madness!)

Arthur Clune said:

400W is perfectly possible - Lance Armstrong can
produce >400W for an hour. As did Chris Boardman during
his hour record.

I can't mind.

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it
himself" ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Jon Senior said:

The other possibility, depending on costs is SRAM
Dualdrive, but I'd really like to see one in action first.
I was never a big fan of twistgrip shifting.

After tests in the NL both Roos and I came out quite
favourably impressed with the DD, and it is nice being able
to change down stood at lights or the like as you can't
honk your way out of it on a 'bent if you stopped in too
high a gear.

You don't /need/ to use a twist (I think they're a Work of
Stan, Roos is more underwhelmed with them than I am), it
should be possible to set it up with a pair of bar ends (as
on the Grasshopper, and indeed on the Fiero that should
arrive for Roos later this month). Even if you do like
gripshifters they're the wrong way up/round on underseat
bars, but bar ends actually work better than on the drops
they were designed for.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_dot_co_dot_uk.remove> wrote:

: 400W is actually very close to possible at the minute. A
: suitable guinea pig and some serious steroids should
: make it a reality.

400W is perfectly possible - Lance Armstrong can
produce >400W for an hour. As did Chris Boardman during
his hour record.

Apologies... I had my figures wrong. The actual value is
nearer 800W. Apparently the "output" of most sprinters is
around 600W. Back to steroids I think!

Jon