Finding a bike that fits.

Rolando said:

No, not all folding bikes in existence, only the few that were
available in the dealers in my area, in the same way that I have not
been able to try every full size bike made, as I say, I can only try
what is readily available, if that fails then I have to start searching
further afield, which is exactly what I'm doing now. Regards Ro..

Very reasonable thinking, but if you apply the same logic to other
folders as to other non-folders then it will make sense to look at other
alternatives beyond the readily available for folders too, will it not?

In other words, don't write off the ones you haven't tried because the
ones you did weren't suitable. "Folders are out" just limits your
chance of a successful search.

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

Simon Brooke said:

However, having said all that, I hold to my opinion that for the
overwhelming majority of people, what you describe as 'extreme racing
designs' are far and away the most comfortable for anything more than very
short journeys. Just drape yourself loosely over the bike, slouch, relax,
go.

I'm with Nick on this, I'm more comfortable when sitting up straight, or
sat in an armchair. Slouching forwards to gain comfort is of utility
for sleeping on a desk, but that's about it. The main point of a
forward lean on a bike is aerodynamic efficiency, which ultimately
affects comfort through power reductions and hence tired muscles, but
otherwise only helps comfort by taking weight off a rather contrived and
small seat, but only by putting it on arms and hands which haven't
evolved to take weight.

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

Peter Clinch said:

Ben C said:

Some bike designs must be in some sense more difficult to ride than
others-- but how can you tell, provided they're all "rideable"? If
I've got used to riding one kind of bike I'll probably always find a
different design difficult to start with, even if really it's better.

A case in point is a standard upright trike. There's no question it's
an inherently stable design, and most people who have never ridden
cycles before can get straight on one and ride successfully, but
people with conventional bike experience find them /very/ unstable on
corners, because their trained instinct is to lean the vehicle.

I shall cloak the victim in tactful anonymity, but a gentleman I met during
a recent audax said he'd taken his uprigh trike out that morning for the
first time in a while and ridden into the hedge three times in ten yards...

For my part, I find long-wheelbase recumbents /much/ harder to ride than
SWB's, whereas just about everyone else reckons the opposite. The number of
times I fell off Mr. Ballantine's Avatar 2000 gave me cause to think that I
should never master lying down on two wheels, and it was another six years
before salvation, in the form of the prototype Kingcycle, appeared.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop press! Pope still dead...

Nigel Cliffe said:

Thanks for the clues, though I'm no nearer a definition of stable
bicycle.

Prof Bill Patterson has produced a Scholarly Monograph on the subject, at
least for recumbents, but unfortunately wants Real Money for it.

Having witnessed Bill cruising happily around Battle Mountain on his
home-brewed low racer "Pimp Ride" with his hands behind his head, he /may/
be onto something.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Is it an Audi A4?

Alan Braggins said:

DiBlasi do an upright folding trike, but that's probably easier to
fall off than the Greensped or ICE, and the front wheel might well
not be far enough ahead of the centre of mass for you, being similar
to many folding bikes.

I am given to understand, though, that the DiBlasi trike weighs slightly
more than Windsor Castle...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My other motto is in Latin.

Simon Brooke said:

Some mainstream manufacturers (certainly including Giant and Kona)
make bikes of this general style, but, having seen them, I think
they'd be hell to ride for anything but a few-hundred-metre cruise
down a flat street. Giant's 'fashion' range, however, are definitely
practical and might be suitable for the OP - if you can get past the
funky styling:
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.020.000.asp?range=272

A mate bought one of these:

<URL:http://www.ransbikes.com/Fusion/Fusion.htm>

as a winter commuting machine.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My other motto is in Latin.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mike Causer <[email hidden]> writes:
|> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:00:11 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:
|>
|> > A stiff frame is definitely good, and small wheels are definitely worse,
|>
|> So a very stiff frame with very small wheels amounts to what ???

A damn good question?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Dave Larrington said:

A mate bought one of these:

<URL:http://www.ransbikes.com/Fusion/Fusion.htm>

as a winter commuting machine.

I don't like the idea of "spunky handling"

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://www.box.net/public/0n493oa6y7

In article <[email hidden]>

Rolando said:

The suggestion that I learn to slide off the saddle when stopping
doesn't appeal to me, particularly if I had to stop in an emergency,
such as a cat, say, running out in front of me, in any event, I used to
ride bikes quite competently, was able to reach the ground (just)
whilst still on the saddle, and able to ride for miles with only
sunburn as a cause of my soreness, but that was in the days when form
was more important than fashion.

Did you see the links to lowrider/cruiser type bikes? Although
'fashionable', they may provide a solution to your problem.

Quoted message said:

These days, in almost every walk of
life, it seems, it is more important how a thing LOOKS than how it
functions. We seem to be obsessed with gimmickry, why else would
Mountain Bikes be made that could not, under any circumstances, be used
on a mountain (just to take one example).

Because proper mountain bikes are expensive, and most people don't do
off-road riding anyway, at least nothing rougher than towpaths and
grass. The so-called mountain bikes that are so common these days are
just the new utility bikes[1], a major impovement for most people from
the 'racers' which became ubiquitous in the 1970s when the popularity of
the old-style roadster utility bike waned. I think you're right about
gadgets and fads - on my old 70's touring bikes I could out-ride many
people on skinny high-tech 80's racers and cheap 90's mountain bikes. I
had a racer and a mountain bike too, but they were used for racing and
off-roading, to which they were best suited.

[1] The original mountain bikes were actually based on old American
cruiser/utility bikes - they were modified to ride up steep hills, so
low gears, then come bombing back down, so fat tyres and better brakes,
by the mountain bike pioneers. Off-road machines have a long history in
the UK - cyclo-cross and grass-track originated in the 1950's, "rough
stuff" riders had already been using modified touring bikes for a while
by then, and in the 70's it was common to strip old three-speeds and fit
bullhorn bars for charging around the woods.

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Rolando" <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> The suggestion that I learn to slide off the saddle when stopping
|> doesn't appeal to me, ...

That is why I suggested buying a bicycle where you could start off
not needing to do so, at the cost of having the saddle too low and
putting too much strain on your knees, but where the saddle could
be raised later as your learnt that technique.

The point is that it is physically impossible for an upright
bicycle to avoid both causing knee strain (or even damage) and
requiring you to slide off the saddle. There just isn't any way
to get the distances to fit - and that means anyone, not just you.

If you insist on not needing to leave the saddle to stop, then you
need a tricycle, a recumbent, a semi-recumbent (as some people
have pointed out) or to ride with the saddle too low. It's as simple
as that, and has been since the invention of the safety bicycle.

|> I used to
|> ride bikes quite competently, was able to reach the ground (just)
|> whilst still on the saddle, and able to ride for miles with only
|> sunburn as a cause of my soreness, but that was in the days when form
|> was more important than fashion.

Most younger and some older people can ride bicycles with their knees
bent (at full stretch) without knee pain or short-term damage, but
it is not good even for them. If you can still do it, and are happy
to to so, then you can buy a very small bicycle and be able to get
your feet down. That is what you did then.

You are posting to the wrong person if you think that I favour form
over function. For a very similar bicycle to the one I use, see:

http://www.batavus.nl/pages/BatavusFiets.aspx?bikeGroupId=301&collection=0

If yours was an older style than that, I assume that your full name
is Rolando Methusela!

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Rolando said:

but that was in the days when form
was more important than fashion. These days, in almost every walk of
life, it seems, it is more important how a thing LOOKS than how it
functions.

A Dutch-style roadster is pretty much the same design it's been for a
loooong time. I cannot ride one /with the saddle set for optimum
pedalling/ and touch the ground at the same time. It's nothing to do
with looks, it's the basic geometry: I have to come off the saddle when
I stop unless there's a kerb handy.

Quoted message said:

why else would
Mountain Bikes be made that could not, under any circumstances, be used
on a mountain

Ummmm, mine has been on mountains, and it's far from high specification.

Quoted message said:

I would like us to get back to the Old Values, but I know that won't happen.

I really don't see how a Penny-Farthing will help you...

For the *functionality* (irrespective of fashion) that you want
(optimised pedalling combined with easy foot-down) a different basic
geometry to an upright bike is required, not just to a modern mountain bike.

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

Peter Clinch said:

For the *functionality* (irrespective of fashion) that you want
(optimised pedalling combined with easy foot-down) a different basic
geometry to an upright bike is required, not just to a modern mountain
bike.

Following up to my own post... there are exceptions with bottom brackets
lower than "normal" bikes (and that "normal" includes traditional
designs, not just MTBs). In my own fleet the Brompton, as already
mentioned, and even more so the Burrows 8 Freight. But the 8 Freight
isn't an everyday machine and the rider needs to take a fair degree of
care not to ground it out (both frame and pedals).

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

Quoting Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I really don't see how a Penny-Farthing will help you...

Well, you _can_ touch the ground while sat on the saddle by applying the
front brake vigorously. Unfortunately you'll do it with your forehead. :-)
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

In article <[email hidden]>

Peter Clinch said:

Rolando wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would like us to get back to the Old Values, but I know that won't happen.

I really don't see how a Penny-Farthing will help you...

A hobby-horse would - you can definitely get your feet down on them :-)

Simon Brooke said:

I hold to my opinion that for the overwhelming majority of
people, what you describe as 'extreme racing designs' are
far and away the most comfortable for anything more than
very short journeys.

I disagree with you and agree with Nick.

Bicycle designs must compromise between three incompatible
requirements. (1) For aerodynamic efficiency and speed, the
bike plus rider must present a small area to the wind. (2)
To allow the rider to stand on the pedals to generate more
power on hills, the rider must be over the pedals. (3) For
comfort, the rider must be a relaxed upright or sitting
posture.

The different bicycle designs are different ways to
compromise between these: recumbents fail requirement (2);
racing and fast touring designs fail (3) and upright
roadsters fail (1). No design meets all three requirements.

If comfort is your most important requirement, then a racing
bike or similar design is not appropriate.

--
Gareth Rees

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Peter Clinch said:

Rolando wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would like us to get back to the Old Values, but I know that won't
happen.

I really don't see how a Penny-Farthing will help you...

A hobby-horse would - you can definitely get your feet down on them :-)

That'll be one of these then ;-)

http://www.wooden-bike.co.uk/bikes/likeabike_racer

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

I hold to my opinion that for the overwhelming majority of
people, what you describe as 'extreme racing designs' are
far and away the most comfortable for anything more than
very short journeys.

I disagree with you and agree with Nick.

Bicycle designs must compromise between three incompatible
requirements. (1) For aerodynamic efficiency and speed, the
bike plus rider must present a small area to the wind. (2)
To allow the rider to stand on the pedals to generate more
power on hills, the rider must be over the pedals. (3) For
comfort, the rider must be a relaxed upright or sitting
posture.

You forgot the critical "UCI rules say a racing bike must be made of the
following bits in the following arrangement".

As many designs are made which copy the racing rule book, either exactly, or
in general appearance, that limits the designs on sale. This,
fundamentally, is why recumbents are expensive niche machines made by
companies with similar economics to conventional diamond frame custom
builders.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Much better.

--
Bob C
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob C" <patnbobattpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dear Helen,

At last a post from one of your (sleeping) fans - but please redefine
your definition of old. (70's)

Alright then... cyclists who have reached the prime of life.

Will that do ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

Bicycle designs must compromise between three incompatible
requirements. (1) For aerodynamic efficiency and speed, the
bike plus rider must present a small area to the wind. (2)
To allow the rider to stand on the pedals to generate more
power on hills, the rider must be over the pedals.

You state this as a "requirement", though it clearly isn't if you've got
appropriate gearing. I /very/ rarely stand on my pedals.

Quoted message said:

The different bicycle designs are different ways to
compromise between these: recumbents fail requirement (2);

But since they allow the rider to push against the seat, rather than
gravity, it's a moot point.

Quoted message said:

roadsters fail (1). No design meets all three requirements.

Recumbents meet them all as long as you realise that pushing against the
seat is a perfectly good substitute.

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

Response to Peter Clinch:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The different bicycle designs are different ways to
compromise between these: recumbents fail requirement (2);

But since they allow the rider to push against the seat, rather than
gravity, it's a moot point.

ISTR reading somewhere [here, very possibly] that one reason recumbents
may be harder on the knees is that more power may be transmitted by
pushing against the seat than by standing on the pedals. That chimes
with what I find, in any case.

--
Mark, UK
"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."