Pedal Forward Bike

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise
would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to
conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude
"if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in
the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to
encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on
bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them.

The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people
who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both
feet on the ground while seated.

As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet,
but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design,
quality and service they provide.

I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a
bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese
argument as you need to take people as you find them.

I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but
then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable
on this bike.

Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg
and perform poorly on hills or anywhere.

I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes
some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are
good things.

Quoted message said:

DougC said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a
traditional diamond frame?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Robert

Quoted message said:

I've got a RANS Fusion.
Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and
because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for
lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs.

Quoted message said:

The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only
other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more
comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my
shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's
normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go,
unlike recumbent bikes.

Quoted message said:

The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and
Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems
like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work.

Quoted message said:

The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the
"flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot
and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim
levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the
same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty
mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the
(straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on
them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather
low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard.

Quoted message said:

One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are
proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them
at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and
saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the
problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be
considerably less severe on these bikes).

Quoted message said:

I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes
but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot
Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version.
~

I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary'
for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They
most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people
may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my
last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm
certainly not the only one.

This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one
of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as
a form of transportation.

Robert

The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which
is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the
this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way'
to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it
is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is
tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). .

What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets. THAT
would encourage people to actually use a bike to get around but even
with that, the numbers will always be small. AND don't expect the vast
majority of towns/cities/counties to spend the $.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise
would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to
conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude
"if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in
the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to
encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on
bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them.

The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people
who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both
feet on the ground while seated.

As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet,
but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design,
quality and service they provide.

I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a
bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese
argument as you need to take people as you find them.

I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but
then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable
on this bike.

Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg
and perform poorly on hills or anywhere.

I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands,
and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances
aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town.

The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest
rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km
long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that.

Quoted message said:

I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes
some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are
good things.

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

Tom 'Johnny Sunset' Sherman said:

If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise
would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to
conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude
"if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in
the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to
encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on
bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them.

The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people
who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both
feet on the ground while seated.

As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet,
but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design,
quality and service they provide.

I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a
bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese
argument as you need to take people as you find them.

I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but
then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable
on this bike.

Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg
and perform poorly on hills or anywhere.

I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands,
and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances
aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town.

The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest
rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km
long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that.

Quoted message said:

I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes
some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are
good things.

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

The crank-forward bicycles have the advantage of being much more like a
"conventional" bicycle than a recumbent, while providing much of the
comfort advantages that a recumbent does to an inexperienced and/or
casual rider.

[1] For this day and age.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm said:

...
The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which
is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the
this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way'
to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it
is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is
tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). .

What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets. THAT
would encourage people to actually use a bike to get around but even
with that, the numbers will always be small. AND don't expect the vast
majority of towns/cities/counties to spend the $.

A qualified agreement with Peter. On rural highways, I have found the
best to be a WIDE paved (and rumble strip free) shoulder that is NOT
marked as a bicycle lane. This allows riding in the relatively dirt and
debris free traffic lane some to most of the time, then being able to
drift over onto the shoulder to allow overtaking motor vehicle traffic
to safely pass without slowing.

Similarly, a wider than normal right lane in urban areas allows for the
lane to be safely shared, while avoiding the ghetto effect of a marked
bicycle lane that complicates left turns and leads motorists to believe
bicycles should be confined to marked "bicycle facilities".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

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

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

The other being 'major roadblocks'. Even here in the republic, which
is pretty cycling 'heavy', roads do not support cycling all over the
this little town. The 'Boulder creek path', often touted as the 'way'
to get around by bicycle, was sold as a multiuse path and multiuse it
is in spades..so much so that using it as a bike path is
tough(IMPOSSIBLE whenever the CU football crowd is on it). .

Indeed the Boulder Creek path can be extremely congested, a bad combo
with too-fast riders, rollerbladers, drunks, and lots of sharp, blind
turns. It is probably the most dangerous MUP I have ever ridden.

And yet, when I worked as a messenger in Boulder the path was also
extremely useful, and definitely made my life as a utility cyclist
easier.

Overall, Boulder is congested but is a relatively easy place to ride.

Quoted message said:

What is needed is a shoulder/bikelane on all city/county streets.

Like Fort Collins. Easiest town to cycle through I have ever seen.

Robert

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

Quoted message said:

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

I must respectfully disagree (and I've never ridden anything but
conventional bikes myself and probably never well). I think this part
of your statement is key:

(snipped) Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability (snip)

Some people aren't of either/or normal size or physical ability. For
riders of shorter stature it's often an issue of whether or not they
can get both feet on the ground when stopped. The feet forward bikes
make it easier for them to do this, making it more likely that they
will ride. I'm sure they will remain a niche market, but there will be
some who find they suit their needs.

Smokey

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
> > bicycle design.
>
> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

Quoted message said:

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

(Tom Keats) said:

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis-
apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it
should be used.

Robert

R.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Chalo <[email hidden]> writes:
> Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >
>> > Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for
>> > people
>> > who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
>> > The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
>> > solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of
>> > conventional
>> > bicycle design.
>>
>> The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
>> older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
>> People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
>> have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
>> soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
>> with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".
>
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
> to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
> it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
> thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
> might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)
>
> I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
> bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
> normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
> regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
> lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
> expensive bike.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

Quoted message said:

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel

....well...that was a problem, too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

Nooo. Rather weirder than that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/

Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
bottle-gen light set.

The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
do that for two people.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.

I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
a comfort bike, I'd walk.

OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.

The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
(my read).

-paul

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
.... Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

--------

.....As to the RANS bikes, they are more comfortable, by the way that
they provide more area to sit on (even though the seat pans are flexible
plastic, the central area has a flat metal bracket under it--I own a
Fusion, so I know).

Every now and then when I am riding the Fusion or the LWB recumbent bike
in town, total strangers will ask if they can try /sitting/ on it. I had
"regular" bicycles for 15 years before I got into recumbents--and NOBODY
ever asked me if they could sit on ANY of those bikes.
~

Chalo said:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
.... Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Chalo

Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

--------

.....As to the RANS bikes, they are more comfortable, by the way that
they provide more area to sit on (even though the seat pans are flexible
plastic, the central area has a flat metal bracket under it--I own a
Fusion, so I know).

Every now and then when I am riding the Fusion or the LWB recumbent bike
in town, total strangers will ask if they can try /sitting/ on it. I had
"regular" bicycles for 15 years before I got into recumbents--and NOBODY
ever asked me if they could sit on ANY of those bikes.
~

Quoted message said:

DougC said:

Quoted message said:

I don't get it. How are the clothing requirements any different for a
traditional diamond frame?
Robert

I've got a RANS Fusion.
Because the seat is a larger area, padded shorts aren't necessary, and
because the seat is noseless, lycra shorts aren't even necessary for
lots of people. There's nothing rubbing between your legs.

The Fusion is not as comfortable as a long-wheelbase recumbent (my only
other bike) but it is more maneuverable, and it is considerably more
comfortable than a conventional upright bike. It's become my
shorter-range (<25 miles or so) errand/commuting/guest-use bike. It's
normal enough that anyone used to a regular bike can get on it and go,
unlike recumbent bikes.

The Dynamik and Zenetic have steeper head angles than the Fusion and
Cruz. The inability to stand and pedal is annoying at times; it seems
like I could /almost/ do it but when I try, it just doesn't work.

The RANS bikes are currently the most performance-oriented of the
"flat-foot" bikes. A couple others less-so are the Lightfoot Surefoot
and the bikes from Day6bicycles (one frame with a couple different trim
levels). I've never tried these others, but they nearly duplicate the
same riding position--unlike bikes like the Townie, which are pretty
mild by comparison. One big difference is that the RANS bikes place the
(straight) handlebars at a fairly-high position, so you can pull hard on
them to help with pedaling. The Surefoot and Day6 use frames with rather
low-set stems and riser handlebars that you couldn't pull on as hard.

One note about the RANS bikes is that the seats and seat posts are
proprietary; you cannot easily mount regular saddles of any kind on them
at all. The Surefoot and Day6 appear to mount standard seatposts and
saddles, so you could experiment with the various ergo saddles (-and the
problems they have on regular bikes of increased hand pressure should be
considerably less severe on these bikes).

I've also read of a few cases of shorter people who liked the RANS bikes
but couldn't fit well on them. For smaller-stature people, the Lightfoot
Surefoot comes in a 20-inch wheel version.
~

I'm not sure who convinced you guys that padded shorts are 'necessary'
for riding a traditional bike, but they sold you a bill of goods. They
most certainly are not necessary. They may be helpful and many people
may enjoy wearing them, but necessary they are not. I've ridden my
last 150,000 miles or so without wearing lycra shorts, and I'm
certainly not the only one.

So then,,,, in the last TdF, how many riders wore padded shorts?
Maybe those guys are just stupid, and you can go and learn them why
they're such candy-asses. Padded shorts, what a bunch of wussies! Maybe
you can teach them how to ride real fast too.

Quoted message said:

This concept that special clothing is necessary to ride a bike is one
of the major roadblocks in the way of cycling being taken seriously as
a form of transportation.

Robert

Recumbent-specific riding shorts do not have any padding; most riders do
not feel the need, so there is no market for them.

Upright-specific bicycling shorts, conversely, /do/.
I didn't cause this, it was the opinion of a vast number of other
people, and has been the opinion for many decades now. If you feel that
padding isn't necessary you would seem to be in the minority.
,,,,
It's also worthy to note that most recumbents are only available with
one type and size of seat. Would you buy an upright bike if the saddle
and seat-post were already welded on? Why or why not?
~

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists" and what accommodations are they refusing to
make? In the context of bikes on the road the only elitists I've
encountered are a small percentage of motorists and they don't think
*anything* other than cars and light trucks belong on the street. They
certainly don't differentiate between recumbents and conventional
bikes.
If OTOH you're not referring to a need for some unspecified
accommodations but simply elitist attitudes in the cycling community,
you're right. No group of cyclists has more members with elitist
attitudes than the 'bent crowd. Just review all the "this is the
greatest bike ever built for any purpose" posts in this NG. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

Who are these "elitists"

City Councils who kow-tow to motorheaded
Business Improvement Associations, and
cringingly & handwringingly heed their whinings
about how anything that might impede motorized
traffic will adversely affect The Economy.

Quoted message said:

and what accommodations are they refusing to
make?

Anything which allows non-driving, local traffic to
freely move about, to the supposed detriment of
drivers who'd rather, on their suburban commutes,
just shoot through your city without stopping anyway.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

DougC said:

... we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

Seats in cars, buses and planes are not designed to support you during
muscular work. In that sense, they do a very different job than a
bicycle saddle.

In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
that.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/Sore.htm may help.

Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
"recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4785

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-115989.html

- Frank Krygowski