Gold Rush vs. Rans V2

"T.E.O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?

Please opine.

There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me.. Ride both and
decide which is the best for you and your pocketbook.

I have ridden both and like the ride of the GR more. I also have purchased
one (GR)..... Is it worth the extra money? That really depends how much $$
you have.... If I had it to do over, I might have even gone for the TI GR.
The GR hasn't had many design changes that I am aware of..... when I buy a
bicycle, I figure it is a 10 year investment, and per year, the cost isn't
prohibitive.

Arne

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

Quoted message said:

"T.E.O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?

Please opine.

There are a lot of GRR riders who think so. Including me.. Ride both and
decide which is the best for you and your pocketbook.

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??"
"Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design differences. Mainly the
bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high bottom brackets. They
say they get "numb feet" because of the height.

Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a long wheelbase more
comparable to the tour easy. Go to Bent Rider On Line and read the recumbent
guide. Or WISL has a guide that used to be run by the Washington DC
"ungroup" and Mark M.

Miles of Smiles,

Tom

i think a v2 vrs a tour easy is more inline, as they both are cro moly..
a GRR to v2 formula wiuld be another good comparision as they both are aluminum.
however arent to many v2 formula around yet..
i wonder how a V2 formula, fully socked would rate speed wise to a GRR socked..

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You would be better advised to consider the design differences. Mainly the
bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high bottom brackets. They
say they get "numb feet" because of the height.

Tom makes a very valid point. My wife has a Gold Rush. She went with
Easy Racers because of the lower bottom bracket as well as the
availability of and the ease of installation of the fairing and body
sock. The V2 used to come with a fairing and one can still be
installed, but I haven't seen a V2 with a body or a tail sock. She
also felt that the GR was lighter (not that it is, only that she felt
that it was as well as more responsive). She has been very happy with
her choice. I, on the other hand, having the assignment of staying
with her once she starts to motor in that darn body sock, sometimes
wish she had reconsidered. Decision revolves around how each bike
feels to you. If they are close then the money difference weighs
heavy. But if the GR is a clear winner I always find that it is better
to go with what feels the best, even at a higher price, than going
cheaper and wishing later you hadn't.

Mike S.
St. Louis, Mo.

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??"
"Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design differences. Mainly the
bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high bottom brackets. They
say they get "numb feet" because of the height.

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the aesthetic
design difference. I have always like the appearance of a monotube
design over the by now very old fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2
is also triangulated, but it looks very monotube). All those little
tubes running every which way strike me as being highly inelegant. The
fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come up with anything new in their
designs for the Tour Easy line of recumbents in over 20 years as far
as I can tell. The Easy Racer recumbents are all over priced too. I
think it will cost nearly $2000. now for a really old fashion looking
Tour Easy.

I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only several
hundred dollars and that is about what they are worth. I think the
Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS that I have ever seen. The Tour
Easy looks downright clunky next to it.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the aesthetic
design difference. I have always like the appearance of a monotube
design over the by now very old fashion Tour Easy design

Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument

:-)

I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not everyone does.
That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's something good to be said for the
design remaining nearly constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley,
Kronin, and even Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in something like a
110 years (the classic English 3-speed type). In both cases, we're talking
about a design that works well enough for enough people to justify its
continued production. The prices, new and used, seem to reflect this
versatility.

In terms of differences between GRR and V2, well, they're different. GRRs
(&TEs) have a ready supplier of bodysocks if you want to go that way.

Good Luck,

H

Howard <bishop(1199bitshiftleft1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the aesthetic
design difference. I have always like the appearance of a monotube
design over the by now very old fashion Tour Easy design

Ah, but in matters of taste, there can be no argument.

There is always good taste and then there is bad taste. It goes
without saying which I am in possession of. 😉

Quoted message said:

I happen to prefer to TE/GRR look to that of a V2, but not everyone does.
That's cool. Aesthetics aside, there's something good to be said for the
design remaining nearly constant for 20+ years. After all, Pashley,
Kronin, and even Joe Breeze are busy making bikes whose angles and
measurements and even componentry hasn't changed much in something like a
110 years (the classic English 3-speed type). In both cases, we're talking
about a design that works well enough for enough people to justify its
continued production. The prices, new and used, seem to reflect this
versatility.

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design. However, this is not true of
recumbents. I also believe there is a perfect design for a recumbent
too, but no one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision about what
looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same to me. I can almost
be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I can with an Italian racing
bike. They are both very much the same in their design function and in
their appearance function (aesthetic).

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign their Tour
Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the same proportions and
measurements exactly as they now have them. It would just look so much
better. Recumbents don't really need to have anything to do with a
diamond frame appearance as has been proven repeatedly with the many
excellent monotube designs.

I do think Rans has the best looking line of recumbents of any
manufacturer. All of their recumbents are triangulated, but they
appear more monotube than otherwise (except for the Stratus of
course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome line of
recumbents now. The Burleys are all strictly monotubes.
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design. However, this is not true of
recumbents. I also believe there is a perfect design for a recumbent
too, but no one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision about what
looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same to me. I can almost
be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I can with an Italian racing
bike. They are both very much the same in their design function and in
their appearance function (aesthetic).

This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly milage is in the
hundreds, dept store bikes have some serious shortcomings. I wouldn't
want to ride a commonly equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several
thousand miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the failure
rate for components was high. Inop shifters, brakes, wheel bearings
spewed out like peanut shells on a steakhouse floor, cracked frames, etc.
Steel rims are lousy when wet, and rain happens.

But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than we'd like to
think. The continued existance of Record and Dura Ace is a triumph of
marketing, IMO.

Quoted message said:

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign their Tour
Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the same proportions and
measurements exactly as they now have them. It would just look so much
better.

It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett Creek, I think.

Quoted message said:

course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome line of
recumbents now.

Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me :-)
Most of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a Burley a
second look.

On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Howard" <bishop(1199<<1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design. However, this is not true of
recumbents. I also believe there is a perfect design for a recumbent
too, but no one has hit upon it yet. Recumbent designs are all over
the lot.

Therefore, aesthetics can have some play in our decision about what
looks best. All diamond frame bikes look the same to me. I can almost
be as happy with a K-Mart Special as I can with an Italian racing
bike. They are both very much the same in their design function and in
their appearance function (aesthetic).

Quoted message said:

This may be true for a casual rider, but if your monthly milage is in the
hundreds, dept store bikes have some serious shortcomings. I wouldn't
want to ride a commonly equipped dept store bike (e.g. Huffy) for several
thousand miles - especially on a tour. I've seen it done; the failure
rate for components was high. Inop shifters, brakes, wheel bearings
spewed out like peanut shells on a steakhouse floor, cracked frames, etc.
Steel rims are lousy when wet, and rain happens.

I was only discussing configuration of the frame. Give a few inches here and
there and a few degrees of angle here and there -they are essentially the
same. You really can't say that about recumbents. The frames are very
different from one another in their configurations.

Quoted message said:

But the point of diminishing return happens earlier than we'd like to
think. The continued existance of Record and Dura Ace is a triumph of
marketing, IMO.

I have never been into components. The mid level stuff is just fine with me.
All I ever ask is that it just work and not be bothering me with adjustments
and repairs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have often thought that Easy Racers ought to redesign their Tour
Easy recumbent with a monotube and yet keep the same proportions and
measurements exactly as they now have them. It would just look so much
better.

It would look a lot (but not exactly) like a Koosah/Jett Creek, I think.

Quoted message said:

course). I think Burley is also making a very handsome line of
recumbents now.

Nuts. I have to agree. With Ed. This is killin' me :-)
Most of the stick bikes leave me cold, but I always give a Burley a
second look.

I am not sure about the comfort of that seat, but if it is truly comfy, then
I think Burley is on its way. I am not into lightness or speed much anymore,
but a recumbent has got to handle well and it has got to look well too since
they are all damn expensive.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 11 Apr 2004 22:46:34 -0700, [email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional diamond frame
bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on the bike). I do not
see why they should be banned. However recumbents are a different creature
altogether so I can see why they would be banned.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
never any reason to change its design.

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

Quoted message said:

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional diamond frame
bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on the bike).

You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article with no
further improvement possible, any more than 'bents are. The diamond
frame bike varies from the Pashley delivery boy bike to the latest
all-carbon track offering. DFs are just as broad a church as 'bents.
Especially if you extend DF to include all upwrongs, in which case you
start getting exotic creatures like the Burrows 8-Freight.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

I just have to say it...

You are aware a monotube structure is physically inferior to a triangulated
one in every way? Unless one has the capability to change the monotube
dimensions, thickness, cross section, etc, continuously over the length of
the tube. Which can be done with composites but aint no one ready to pay
that kind of cash.

A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER have the ride
qualities of a well tuned and refined triangulated design.

Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly aerodynamically superior to
the Harley types. Yet the Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that because
you dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone agrees with you.

Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells for less is either
making them offshore or has gone out of business. These are made in the USA,
some folks are willing to pony up a little extra for the quality and peace
of mind buying an Easy Racers ensures.

And some aren't.

But get off of your monotube high horse, monotubes are demonstratably
inferior to well engineered triangulated frames.

Gabriel DeVault

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

Quoted message said:

"THOMAS E BLUM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You ask:"Big price difference. Is the Easy worth the extra $'s?"

That is a question of religious proportions.

"Do you believe in god??"
"Do you really love me??"

The thousands who buy Tour Easy obviously think so.

Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only might disagree.

You would be better advised to consider the design differences. Mainly

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high bottom brackets.

They

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

say they get "numb feet" because of the height.

Yes, not only the functional design differences but also the aesthetic
design difference. I have always like the appearance of a monotube
design over the by now very old fashion Tour Easy design (the Rans V2
is also triangulated, but it looks very monotube). All those little
tubes running every which way strike me as being highly inelegant. The
fact is that Easy Racers hasn't come up with anything new in their
designs for the Tour Easy line of recumbents in over 20 years as far
as I can tell. The Easy Racer recumbents are all over priced too. I
think it will cost nearly $2000. now for a really old fashion looking
Tour Easy.

I have a Tour Easy that I built myself from plans for only several
hundred dollars and that is about what they are worth. I think the
Rans V2 is the best looking LWB OSS that I have ever seen. The Tour
Easy looks downright clunky next to it.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

...Rans....

This is by far the most ridiculous thing Mr. Dolan has ever written. 😉

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

THOMAS E BLUM said:

...
You would be better advised to consider the design differences. Mainly the
bottom bracket height. Many people can't handle high bottom brackets. They
say they get "numb feet" because of the height....

Conversely, the primary reason I have seen for people selling their Easy
Racers bicycles is persistent recumbent but from the upright seating
position.

Quoted message said:

Then find the available alternates. Cambie (sp?) makes a long wheelbase more
comparable to the tour easy....

There is also that bike called the RANS Stratus - of course it has only
been around 20+ years so some people may not yet be aware of it. 😉

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

THOMAS E BLUM said:

...
Those who demand that rans be spelt with capitals only might disagree....

And who would that be?

Puzzled,

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

>The upright diamond frame bike was perfected long ago and there is
>never any reason to change its design.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence the banning by UCI of monocoque bikes, obviously.

Quoted message said:

I think the monocoque bikes are identical to the traditional diamond

frame

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bikes in their configuration (how the cyclist is set on the bike).

You missed the point. DF bikes are not a finished article with no
further improvement possible, any more than 'bents are. The diamond
frame bike varies from the Pashley delivery boy bike to the latest
all-carbon track offering. DFs are just as broad a church as 'bents.

But I am struck by how similar all uprights are to one another and
recumbents strike me just the opposite of that. I am only talking about the
frame configuration and how the cyclist is set on that frame. Everything
else about an upright is nothing but Mickey Mouse to me. It simply doesn't
matter what the frame is made out of or what kind of wheels and other
components with which that frame is furnished. The shape of the frame
determines the bike. I maintain that all uprights are basically the same.

Get out your new Hostel Shoppe Catalog and have a look at all the recumbents
displayed there. They are all as different as night and day. They set the
cyclist on the recumbent differently because they are different. That is
always the determining factor and the only one that I pay any attention to.
Like I said, everything else is Mickey Mouse.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

I just have to say it...

You are aware a monotube structure is physically inferior to a

triangulated

Quoted message said:

one in every way? Unless one has the capability to change the monotube
dimensions, thickness, cross section, etc, continuously over the length of
the tube. Which can be done with composites but aint no one ready to pay
that kind of cash.

A monotube frame can be light and aero, but it will NEVER have the ride
qualities of a well tuned and refined triangulated design.\

So just how strong does a tube have to be anyway to carry the weight of a
normal human being? Part of the problem is that many recumbent cyclists are
very heavy people, some weighing close to 250 lbs. So maybe they do need a
triangulated frame. But I continue to be struck by how many seem to like the
looks of the Tour Easy. I believe monotubes are the wave of the future. They
not only look better, but they must also be easier and cheaper to
manufacture. Time will tell.

Quoted message said:

Those sleek japanese motorbikes are certainly aerodynamically superior to
the Harley types. Yet the Harleys sell very well. Don't assume that

because

Quoted message said:

you dislike the aesthetics of something that everyone agrees with you.

Price? You have to be kidding? Every company that sells for less is either
making them offshore or has gone out of business. These are made in the

USA,

Quoted message said:

some folks are willing to pony up a little extra for the quality and peace
of mind buying an Easy Racers ensures.

All recumbents are more expensive than they should be due to their relative
rarity. But Easy Racers have really gone up in their prices over the years
and are now top of the line in price. Thank God for Sun Bicycles and their
EZ line of recumbents. I really feel kind of sorry for anyone who is just
getting into recumbents now as you can't do it for just a couple of hundred
like I did 20 years ago.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota