nuvinci vs. sram dualdrive pricing

JonB said:

It suprised me that the total cost of the nuvinci hub is
less than the Sram DualDrive...

FWIW, that's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison,
since the gearing range of a cycle with a NuVinci hub only
is 3.5:1, and the low end is essentially limited to the
rolling diameter of the drive wheel. The range of a DD hub
and rear derailleur (only) is more likely to be about 6:1,
and the low end can be ridiculously small. As of today,
I believe that adding a front derailleur to the SRAM setup
is still much easier and cheaper than it would be for the
NuVinci, and that would extend the gearing ratio (from
low to high gear) up to about 9:1.

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less
than about 5:1 borders upon 'inadequate', at the very
least. I like the ergonomics of the NuVinci's shifting,
but I think it needs a triple crank, and of course, some
kind of chain tensioner to make it a viable option for an
all-around sports touring tadpole in this area.

Regards,
Wayne

32GO said:

JonB said:

It suprised me that the total cost of the nuvinci hub is
less than the Sram DualDrive...

FWIW, that's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison,
since the gearing range of a cycle with a NuVinci hub only

Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real
experience, as i have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

I still think that one can compare different internal
hubs with each other. One size does not fit all, i was
posting this because i was suprised that the cost was
essential the same.

A schematic comparison of alot of bike gearing options
can be seen here <http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.test.de/themen/freizeit-reise/schnelltest/-NuVinci-Fahrradnabe/1556162/1556162/1556166/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnuvinci%2Bnabe%2B:site%2B.de%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG>

Quoted message said:

is 3.5:1, and the low end is essentially limited to the
rolling diameter of the drive wheel. The range of a DD hub

Nuvinci themselves say a 350% gear range, but from 0.5 to
1.75.

Quoted message said:

and rear derailleur (only) is more likely to be about 6:1,
and the low end can be ridiculously small. As of today,
I believe that adding a front derailleur to the SRAM setup
is still much easier and cheaper than it would be for the
NuVinci, and that would extend the gearing ratio (from
low to high gear) up to about 9:1.

You could also add a schlumpf mountain drive rather than
getting a front derailleur.
http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-40.html
This page talks about Nuvinci, and has some short mention
of combining that with a schlumpf drive to get what is
almost but not quite 850% range of continuesly variable.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?

Quoted message said:

than about 5:1 borders upon 'inadequate', at the very
least. I like the ergonomics of the NuVinci's shifting,
but I think it needs a triple crank, and of course, some
kind of chain tensioner to make it a viable option for an
all-around sports touring tadpole in this area.

Well, arround me it is quite flat. The highest point in the
entire country is only 179 meters. So i expect the nuvinci
gear range to be quite adequate for me. If people live in a
mountain area they could also use a schlumpf mountain drive.
I was thinking of doing that myself if the range was inadequate,
mostly because i dislike cleaning and then i expect to DERAILlure.

JonB

"Jon Bendtsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

32GO said:

JonB said:

It suprised me that the total cost of the nuvinci hub is
less than the Sram DualDrive...

FWIW, that's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison,
since the gearing range of a cycle with a NuVinci hub only

Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real experience, as i
have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

I still think that one can compare different internal
hubs with each other. One size does not fit all, i was
posting this because i was suprised that the cost was
essential the same.

A schematic comparison of alot of bike gearing options
can be seen here
<http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.test.de/themen/freizeit-reise/schnelltest/-NuVinci-Fahrradnabe/1556162/1556162/1556166/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnuvinci%2Bnabe%2B:site%2B.de%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG>

Quoted message said:

is 3.5:1, and the low end is essentially limited to the
rolling diameter of the drive wheel. The range of a DD hub

Nuvinci themselves say a 350% gear range, but from 0.5 to
1.75.

3.5:1 is 350%.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and rear derailleur (only) is more likely to be about 6:1,
and the low end can be ridiculously small. As of today,
I believe that adding a front derailleur to the SRAM setup
is still much easier and cheaper than it would be for the
NuVinci, and that would extend the gearing ratio (from
low to high gear) up to about 9:1.

You could also add a schlumpf mountain drive rather than
getting a front derailleur.
http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-40.html
This page talks about Nuvinci, and has some short mention
of combining that with a schlumpf drive to get what is
almost but not quite 850% range of continuesly variable.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?

It is southern California.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than about 5:1 borders upon 'inadequate', at the very
least. I like the ergonomics of the NuVinci's shifting,
but I think it needs a triple crank, and of course, some
kind of chain tensioner to make it a viable option for an
all-around sports touring tadpole in this area.

Well, arround me it is quite flat. The highest point in the
entire country is only 179 meters. So i expect the nuvinci
gear range to be quite adequate for me. If people live in a
mountain area they could also use a schlumpf mountain drive.
I was thinking of doing that myself if the range was inadequate,
mostly because i dislike cleaning and then i expect to DERAILlure.

JonB

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

gotbent said:

"Jon Bendtsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

32GO said:

JonB wrote:

> It suprised me that the total cost of the nuvinci hub is
> less than the Sram DualDrive...
FWIW, that's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison,
since the gearing range of a cycle with a NuVinci hub only

Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real experience, as i
have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

I still think that one can compare different internal
hubs with each other. One size does not fit all, i was
posting this because i was suprised that the cost was
essential the same.

A schematic comparison of alot of bike gearing options
can be seen here
<http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.test.de/themen/freizeit-reise/schnelltest/-NuVinci-Fahrradnabe/1556162/1556162/1556166/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnuvinci%2Bnabe%2B:site%2B.de%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG>

Quoted message said:

is 3.5:1, and the low end is essentially limited to the
rolling diameter of the drive wheel. The range of a DD hub

Nuvinci themselves say a 350% gear range, but from 0.5 to
1.75.

3.5:1 is 350%.

Yes, but saying :1 makes some people think you cant go lower.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and rear derailleur (only) is more likely to be about 6:1,
and the low end can be ridiculously small. As of today,
I believe that adding a front derailleur to the SRAM setup
is still much easier and cheaper than it would be for the
NuVinci, and that would extend the gearing ratio (from
low to high gear) up to about 9:1.

You could also add a schlumpf mountain drive rather than
getting a front derailleur.
http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-40.html
This page talks about Nuvinci, and has some short mention
of combining that with a schlumpf drive to get what is
almost but not quite 850% range of continuesly variable.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?

It is southern California.

okay, i dont know that area.

JonB

Jon Bendtsen said:

32GO wrote:
...
Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real experience, as i
have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

What is normal about being way up in the air, perched on a tiny saddle?

A normal bicycle has the rider comfortably reclined on a proper seat.

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?...

Southern California. A recumbent bike/trike will need quite low gearing
unless the rider is very strong and prefers low pedaling cadence, as
there are mountain range along the coast.

Quoted message said:

Well, arround me it is quite flat. The highest point in the
entire country is only 179 meters.

Denmark?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

Tom Sherman said:

Jon Bendtsen said:

32GO wrote:
...
Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real experience, as
i have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

What is normal about being way up in the air, perched on a tiny saddle?

Maybe i should have written "the most used bike design".

Quoted message said:

A normal bicycle has the rider comfortably reclined on a proper seat.

okay

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?...

Southern California. A recumbent bike/trike will need quite low gearing
unless the rider is very strong and prefers low pedaling cadence, as
there are mountain range along the coast.

What about different areas? which is flat? like Florida?
or maybe salt lake city? places like that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, arround me it is quite flat. The highest point in the
entire country is only 179 meters.

Denmark?

Yes, Copenhagen. We have a few hills, but thats that.

JonB said:

If people live in a mountain area they could also use
a Schlumpf mountain-drive. I was thinking of doing that
myself if the range was inadequate, mostly because I
dislike cleaning and then I expect to DERAILleur.

My understanding of the original post was to compare the
cost of an SRAM DualDrive gearing setup with a NuVinci
hub. Adding a Schlumpf (at $500US or so) sorta impacts
that balance, methinks [or do they still talk that way
in Denmark?]

FWIW, it's also my current perception that NuVinci has
a spec limit on how low the input gearing is to their
hub, requiring the effective chainring to be at least
twice the size of the freewheel mounted on the hub. If
that's correct and you stay within their guidelines, a
mountain-drive is not a kosher way to lower the overall
gearing.

Quoted message said:

What about different areas? ... flat? like Florida?

Even in areas with relatively flat large-scale topography
you are still likely to encounter short, steep ramps such
as overpasses, where lower gearing lets you make a quick
shift and climb at 5 MPH, rather than stopping, getting
off the trike and walking it up.

For anyone who doesn't need low or wide gearing, and who
isn't a weight weenie or efficiency geek, the ergonomics
of the NuVinci CVT hub should be a very attractive allure.

Regards,
Wayne
3-2-GO: The Trike Store

32GO said:

JonB said:

If people live in a mountain area they could also use
a Schlumpf mountain-drive. I was thinking of doing that
myself if the range was inadequate, mostly because I
dislike cleaning and then I expect to DERAILleur.

My understanding of the original post was to compare the
cost of an SRAM DualDrive gearing setup with a NuVinci
hub. Adding a Schlumpf (at $500US or so) sorta impacts
that balance, methinks [or do they still talk that way
in Denmark?]

It sure does affect the balance. I do not think i need
the extra gear range the DualDrive has, so i'm more
inclined to buy a nuvinci. Especially now i did the price
check and found out they cost the same.

I brought up the schlumpf drive because someone mentioned
adding 3 front deraillure to a DualDrive to get an even
greater gear range. Surely that costs money too, but
probably not as much as a schlumpf drive. But a schlumpf
drive is probably easier to add than 3 front deraillures.

Quoted message said:

FWIW, it's also my current perception that NuVinci has
a spec limit on how low the input gearing is to their
hub, requiring the effective chainring to be at least
twice the size of the freewheel mounted on the hub. If
that's correct and you stay within their guidelines, a
mountain-drive is not a kosher way to lower the overall
gearing.

Quoted message said:

What about different areas? ... flat? like Florida?

Even in areas with relatively flat large-scale topography
you are still likely to encounter short, steep ramps such
as overpasses, where lower gearing lets you make a quick

right, you do make a point.

Quoted message said:

shift and climb at 5 MPH, rather than stopping, getting
off the trike and walking it up.

I'm not thinking of getting a trike, though except perhaps
the apax, but they are not producing that :-(
I consider getting a HP Velotechnik Spirit.

JonB

Jon Bendtsen said:

Tom Sherman said:

Jon Bendtsen said:

32GO wrote:
...
Internal hubs has different gearing range, but yet those
with a smaller gearing range than Nuvinci seem adequate
for alot of normal bikes (which so far is my only real experience, as
i have only tried a HP Velotechnik Spirit
at a shop).

What is normal about being way up in the air, perched on a tiny saddle?

Maybe i should have written "the most used bike design".

Quoted message said:

A normal bicycle has the rider comfortably reclined on a proper seat.

okay

This is the recumbent newsgroup, after all. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...
> IMHO, at least for SoCal terrain, a gear range of less

What is SoCal?...

Southern California. A recumbent bike/trike will need quite low
gearing unless the rider is very strong and prefers low pedaling
cadence, as there are mountain range along the coast.

What about different areas? which is flat? like Florida?
or maybe salt lake city? places like that.

Well, Salt Lake City is very near the mountains. Even in a flat place
like central Illinois or Chicagoland, one will find some areas with
short but steep hills. Florida has overpassed that can be relatively steep.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, arround me it is quite flat. The highest point in the
entire country is only 179 meters.

Denmark?

Yes, Copenhagen. We have a few hills, but thats that.

Yes, low gearing would not be much of a need, from what I recall. (Part
of my family comes from this neighborhood:
<http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&ll=55.67269,12.593111&spn=0.0053,0.014591&t=k&z=16&om=1>.)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

JonB said:

a Schlumpf drive is probably easier to add than [a triple
crank and front derailleur?] ...

That would depend upon the configuration of the frame
or cycle being retrofitted. Schlumpfs require a chamfered
bottom bracket, and the triple crank would need either
an appropriate post or an E-type mount for its changer.

Quoted message said:

I'm not thinking of getting a trike...

Messages posted here are read by lots of folks other
than the original poster who triggered a reply. Gearing
is a frequent topic of conversation for prospective trike
buyers as well as those shopping for their two-wheeled
surrogates.

Regards,
Wayne
3-2-GO: The Trike Store
Ventura CA USA

Jon Bendtsen said:

Quoted message said:

3.5:1 is 350%.

Yes, but saying :1 makes some people think you cant go lower.

Errrr, no... it's a ratio. the Top is 3.5 times bigger than the bottom,
nothing more, nothing less.

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/

Jon Bendtsen said:

It sure does affect the balance. I do not think i need
the extra gear range the DualDrive has, so i'm more
inclined to buy a nuvinci.

I think you're probably right for Denmark. I can get about Dundee, with
far more in the way of relief than most of DK on a 3 speed Brompton
without standing on the pedals, and that's got rather less range than a
NuVinci.

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/

Tom Sherman said:

Well, Salt Lake City is very near the mountains. Even in a flat place
like central Illinois or Chicagoland, one will find some areas with
short but steep hills. Florida has overpassed that can be relatively steep.

Up to a point. But only up to a point. I doubt there's anything steep
enough that a 350% gear range is inadequate.

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:

Tom Sherman said:

Well, Salt Lake City is very near the mountains. Even in a flat place
like central Illinois or Chicagoland, one will find some areas with
short but steep hills. Florida has overpassed that can be relatively steep.

Up to a point. But only up to a point. I doubt there's anything steep
enough that a 350% gear range is inadequate.

Where?

150 km west of here in the "Driftless Area", there are paved roads with
grades of 15 to 20 percent or more. A 350 percent gear range is not
adequate in those conditions.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman said:

Peter Clinch said:

Tom Sherman said:

Well, Salt Lake City is very near the mountains. Even in a flat place
like central Illinois or Chicagoland, one will find some areas with
short but steep hills. Florida has overpassed that can be relatively
steep.

Up to a point. But only up to a point. I doubt there's anything steep
enough that a 350% gear range is inadequate.

Where?

Florida, particularly. I used to date a lady who worked at NASA and so
I travelled a fair bit around the state, including to "Highland County".
A singlespeed would be quite sufficient everywhere I ever saw there.

Quoted message said:

150 km west of here in the "Driftless Area", there are paved roads with
grades of 15 to 20 percent or more. A 350 percent gear range is not
adequate in those conditions.

Even for "here", wherever that is, that's 150 km away...

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/

Tom Sherman said:

Peter Clinch said:

Tom Sherman said:

Well, Salt Lake City is very near the mountains. Even in a flat place
like central Illinois or Chicagoland, one will find some areas with
short but steep hills. Florida has overpassed that can be relatively
steep.

Up to a point. But only up to a point. I doubt there's anything steep
enough that a 350% gear range is inadequate.

Where?

150 km west of here in the "Driftless Area", there are paved roads with
grades of 15 to 20 percent or more. A 350 percent gear range is not
adequate in those conditions.

But is a 542, 8 gear DualDrive, or 576%, 9 gear DualDrive range
adequate (for me)? (Or a 524% Rohloff hub)

I have a MTB now, and utahtrikes say

"A typical mountain bike might have a gear inch range of 18 - 103 and a typical road racing bike could have 43 - 127. A good range for all around riding is about 20 - 90."

http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-7.html

I almost always drive in the higest gear, and some times i can
not drive faster because i can not spin my legs faster.

I am guessing that a HP Velotechnik Spirit is faster than my
MTB, though i have a Nishiki Bifgoot with 29" 700C wheels. So
i would like higher gears.

On the other hand i have a few times experienced i had to jump
off my MTB and walk up. But that might just be because i am not
so fit...

Further more i was thinking of going on a bike vacation with a
friend, and he has no cargo capacity on his brand new MTB. So i
think i'll have to tow it. But towing probably needs lower gears
than if i was not towing.

If i use the spreadsheet from schlumpf and the data from the
http://schlumpf.ch/hsd_engl.htm
HP Velotechnik Spirit i consider, then i get these ranges.

18-62 NuVinci
18-95 DualDrive 8 gear model (which the Spirit is born with).

10-52 Rohloff (yeah, it needs different cog wheels than used in the calculation).

Using Utah trikes words, my current MTB has a higher top gear
than using a DualDrive, and i lack top gears. So i think i need
a bigger range. I might get that from putting a different cassette
on the DualDrive, but i dont really like deraillure, a lesson
learned from my current MTB.

If i combine the above with a schlumpf drive i get:
18-154 nuvinci + schlumpf highspeed (more than adequate).
18-239 dual drive + schlumpf highspeed (ridiculess big range).

I dont even want to combine a Rohloff with a Schlumpf, because
getting a Nuvinci _AND_ a schlumpf drive is cheaper than a Rohloff.

So, do i make sense?

Jon Bendtsen said:

I have a MTB now, and utahtrikes say

"A typical mountain bike might have a gear inch range of 18 - 103 and a
typical road racing bike could have 43 - 127. A good range for all
around riding is about 20 - 90."

http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-7.html

I almost always drive in the higest gear, and some times i can
not drive faster because i can not spin my legs faster.

I would suggest you need to work on upping your cadence. On a typical
MTB you get something like 8m per crank revolution in top gear, a
cadence of 80 rpm makes for ~650m/minute, which is about 40 km/h.
That's a /very/ good speed to be keeping a MTB going the whole time, but
a cadence of 80 rpm isn't anything out of the ordinary /if you're used
to it/, but it is a lot quicker than most people use.

80 rpm is a good sort of level to aim for, most people find that upping
cadence means they can keep going a lot longer before things start to
hurt. Measure your cadence, and if it's well short of 80 work on using
lower gears at higher revs per minute. In the long term it'll be better
for you, better for your chain and sprocket life, and you'll have more
flexibility in any given gear.

Quoted message said:

I am guessing that a HP Velotechnik Spirit is faster than my
MTB

Actually I'd say it's quite unlikely. The Spirit is not meant to be,
nor is it, a quick design. The seating position gives poor aerodynamics
and it's quite a heavy bike. You won't beat any speed records on it.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand i have a few times experienced i had to jump
off my MTB and walk up. But that might just be because i am not
so fit...

Or it might be you're typically using over-high gears?

Quoted message said:

Further more i was thinking of going on a bike vacation with a
friend, and he has no cargo capacity on his brand new MTB.

For a few Euros he can get a rack and take his own!

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:

Jon Bendtsen said:

I have a MTB now, and utahtrikes say

"A typical mountain bike might have a gear inch range of 18 - 103 and a
typical road racing bike could have 43 - 127. A good range for all
around riding is about 20 - 90."

http://www.utahtrikes.com/ARTICLE-7.html

I almost always drive in the higest gear, and some times i can
not drive faster because i can not spin my legs faster.

I would suggest you need to work on upping your cadence. On a typical
MTB you get something like 8m per crank revolution in top gear, a
cadence of 80 rpm makes for ~650m/minute, which is about 40 km/h.
That's a /very/ good speed to be keeping a MTB going the whole time, but
a cadence of 80 rpm isn't anything out of the ordinary /if you're used
to it/, but it is a lot quicker than most people use.

I am not used to such a high cadence, but i sure want my
fitness to increase, so maybe i should aim for that.

Quoted message said:

80 rpm is a good sort of level to aim for, most people find that upping
cadence means they can keep going a lot longer before things start to
hurt. Measure your cadence, and if it's well short of 80 work on using
lower gears at higher revs per minute. In the long term it'll be better
for you, better for your chain and sprocket life, and you'll have more
flexibility in any given gear.

I feel that if i try to spin faster i run out of air.
At least if i do it over a longer time. I rarely bike
more than about 1 hour.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am guessing that a HP Velotechnik Spirit is faster than my
MTB

Actually I'd say it's quite unlikely. The Spirit is not meant to be,
nor is it, a quick design. The seating position gives poor aerodynamics
and it's quite a heavy bike. You won't beat any speed records on it.

True, but my current bike is not light either, and... the bikes
weight drown in mine. I got less than 103% when i set the Spirit
weight + mine 100% up against the weight of Spirit + Nuvinci + me.

I think my current bike has a worse aerodynamics than the Spirit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand i have a few times experienced i had to jump
off my MTB and walk up. But that might just be because i am not
so fit...

Or it might be you're typically using over-high gears?

I probably am, because i normally dont do 80 rpm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further more i was thinking of going on a bike vacation with a
friend, and he has no cargo capacity on his brand new MTB.

For a few Euros he can get a rack and take his own!

If it can be mounted, but yeah i forgot that part, maybe because
i need to excercise, and increased weight increases the exercise.

JonB

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:51:28 +0100

Jon Bendtsen said:

I feel that if i try to spin faster i run out of air.
At least if i do it over a longer time. I rarely bike
more than about 1 hour.

That's why you have to practice 🙂

I used to think 80 was high. I now do 80 most of the time, and 90-100
when I'm trying.

It's a matter of Just Doing It. I only cycle to work, an hour and a
bit each way. One day I decided to try and not drop below 80, and to
see how long I could do 90 for. I ran out of heart rate very quickly
to start with but now it's nowhere near as hard.

Zebee