Re: recumbent video

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka **** "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> ever was,

Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
reign.

> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
> Daedalus project engineers.
>
> **** Ryan
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Jay]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] aka **** "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
>> Recumbent video
>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.
>
>> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
>> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
>> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
>> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
>> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
>> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
>> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
>> Daedalus project engineers.
>>
>> **** Ryan
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
You are right Tom,
On the Internet, one can be whomever...
J.

 

[Chalo]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> **** Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Recumbent video
> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> > ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.

You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!

It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
fully account for my impression. As a member of a chopper and
tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
did.

I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
that safety bikes were so quickly adopted. At best, that means that
'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

Chalo

 

[Paul O]

Chalo wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
<snip>
>
> Chalo

And as the flames climbed high into the night, To light the sacrificial
rite.
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the flame war started...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 3, 2:30 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
it.

I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
USS steering system it had.

So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
may have ridden.

....

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
tired urban commuter or trail bike.

Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).

It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.

Please give it one more chance.

Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
overcome:

- adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)

- inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding

- difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
are not designed properly

 

[Roger Zoul]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>> >
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

Seems to.

As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

So? Just because you got soured doesn't prove anything.

>
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
HPVs.

At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors.

That's just steer nonsense.

But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of them
if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair chance.

>
> Chalo

 

[[email protected]]

, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> Chalo

Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
recumbents a curiosity?

**** Ryan

 

[Tom Sherman]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when
Chalo's size is taken into account.

> As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension
bicycle shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
past (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.

> At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
and the great amount of misinformation about.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> , the recumbent
> > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
> >
> > Chalo
>
> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> recumbents a curiosity?
>
> **** Ryan

No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

 

[Roger Zoul]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> **** Ryan wrote:
>>>> Recumbent video
>>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>>> ever was,
>>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>>> reign.
>>
>> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
>> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>>
>> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
>> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
>> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
>> fully account for my impression.
>
> It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
> had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when Chalo's
> size is taken into account.
>
>> As a member of a chopper and
>> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
>> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
>> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
>> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
>> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
>> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
>> did.
>
> Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
> adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension bicycle
> shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.
>
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
>> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> the great amount of misinformation about.
>

I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

 

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> **** Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > , the recumbent
> > > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> > Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> > country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> > approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> > recumbents a curiosity?
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

Along with Rideable Bicycle Replicas of Alameda, CA:

http://hiwheel.com/

Bad ideas don't usually go away; mostly they just go nowhere.

Chalo

 

[Olebiker]

On Dec 5, 2:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:39 am, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > Chalo Colina wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> >> >> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> >> >> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> >> >> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> >> >> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> >> > Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
> >> > past
> >> > (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> >> > recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
> >> Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
> >> wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a
> >> variety
> >> of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers
> >> almost
> >> got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. **** Ryan got it wrong
> >> with
> >> his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
>
> >> I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as
> >> there
> >> was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over
> >> the
> >> map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> >> At best, that means that
> >> >> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> >> >> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> >> >> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> >> >> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> >> >> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> >> >> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> >> >> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> >> >> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> >> > The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
> >> > and
> >> > the great amount of misinformation about.
>
> >> Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure
> >> them
> >> out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
> >> has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very
> >> many
> >> recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
> >> mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
> >> for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
> >> youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents
> >> are
> >> for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
>
> >> Now if geniuses like **** Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
> >> most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
> >> recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
> >> frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
> >> recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like
> >> all
> >> the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute
> >> abomination
> >> of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent
> >> manufacturers
> >> could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
> >> not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
> >> Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a
> >> bad
> >> idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
>
> >> Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
> > I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
> > miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.
>
> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I suspect
> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
> provided you ride a lot.
>
> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it into
> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
> because of the discomfort factor.
> - Show quoted text -

I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
have a problem.

I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
I love riding a wedgie.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article
> <ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> , the recumbent
>>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
>> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
>> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
>> recumbents a curiosity?
>>
>> **** Ryan
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.
>
Wheel and Sprocket generates enough revenue to advertise on billboards,
radio and newspapers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> ...
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
> aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
> different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
> that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
> different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
> narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

Upright bicycles are fine for those who can ride them comfortably, which
may well be a majority of the population. Certainly, the upright design
is better for some uses, such as its obvious superiority on technical
single track.

However, the ridiculous claim is made by some (including several
prominent posters on rec.bicycles.*) that uprights can be made
comfortable for ALL through proper fit, or the the discomfort of upright
bicycles does NOT turn some off of cycling as an activity.

Almost every cyclist would benefit if more people took up the activity.
Why discourage people from riding a crank-forward upright or a recumbent
if that is what it take to have them be an active cyclist? Snobbish elitism?

Then there is the sad case of the real life Fabrizio Mazzoleni's, who
are so insecure that the need to form a clique that degenerates anyone
who do not use the same bicycles, clothing and accessories as the UCI
peloton.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[DougC]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> This would be good advice, except for one small, er large, problem.
> Chalo is 2.05 meters tall and has a mass of about 150 kg (at last
> report), which makes him larger than your average NFL tackle. Chalo will
> NOT fit properly on a RANS Rocket or practically any other production
> recumbent. An XL Lightning P-38 with a longer boom MIGHT be acceptable,
> or if Freddy Markham would build a custom Tour Easy with larger diameter
> tubing and extended wheelbase.
>
> I am not surprised at his size that Chalo finds the handling or
> recumbents that are designed for much smaller people to be poor.
>

He should try sitting on a Cycle Genius Falcon if he gets the chance:
> http://www.cyclegenius.com/ltx.html
I am about 6'2" and 285lbs, 2.05 meters and 150kg works out to about
6'7" and 330 lbs or so. Adjusted for me, there's still about three
inches of room to scoot the seat base back. Someone so heavy might watch
the rear wheel spokes, though I'd bet the front would work as-is-OEM.

The Cycle Genius Raven/Falcon is one of the widest-adjustment recumbent
/frames/ around, the seat adjustment can fit people from about four feet
to about six and a half feet--but the handlebars will need to be changed
over that range. Under about 5' you'll need shorter handlebars and near
6' you'll want longer ones. (Also the stem they use is not good, but
changing that out is a minor issue)
~

 

[ryancycles]

> This is not due to their recumbent business, but due to their upright
> business. Even Hostel Shoppe of Stevens Point, one of the most recumbent
> intense businesses in the entire country, does not neglect uprights.
> However, it is really quite strange why Wisconsin should have such great
> recumbent bike shops. After all, it does not have the climate of either
> California or Florida.
>
> location has little or nothing to do with bike sales. The attitudes of theowner and the employees has everything to do with it. One would think that shop owners from other parts of the country would notice the success that W&S has selling recumbents. But they don't and probably never will. A friend of mine works at W&S and related this story to me. Every year Trek has a dealer meeting at the factory (which is not far from W&S's shop in Hale's Corner). As W&S is Trek's biggest dealer and well known as perhaps the most successful bike shop in the country they get quite a few bike shop owner visitorsduring the dealer meeting. A common question asked by visiting dealers is "why do you have all these recumbents on the floor?". Basically a lot of bikeshop owners don't have a clue about business. Of course one of the things that they have to deal with even if they are smart is that the average bike shop employee is a testosterone laden jock who hates recumbents. Comments about recumbents that I've heard in bike shops.
You'll never see one on the floor of this shop!
They don't go up hills.
They are too heavy.
They are too low to the ground.
They're slow.
Sorry, can't help you, don't know anything about them.
Real men ride REAL bicycles!
And my favorite general comment about cycling
"to be a real cyclist you have to be willing to endure pain and
suffering"
The few shops that we dealt with always had only one employee who was
the "recumbent guy". If he wasn't there the potential customer was
told he'd have to come back some other time. I was present at a shop
that sold our bikes and witnessed this wonderful demonstration of
salesmanship. The recumbent guy was discussing the sale of one of our
$4500 tandems to a potential customer. Another salesman overhearing
the conversation stopped and interrupted and said to the couple
interested in the bike "you won't find that thing as comfortable as
you might think" and walked off.
It's rather difficult to popularize a product that for all practical
purposes there are no retail outlets for.
Mr. Chalo is way off base on his comments about poor design, there are
plenty of well designed recumbents out there, but he may be right
about them remaining a curiosity forever.

**** Ryan

 

[Peter Clinch]

ryancycles wrote:

> They don't go up hills.
> They are too heavy.
> They are too low to the ground.
> They're slow.

What's particularly dopey is the way these get wheeled out even when
there is obvious proof to the contrary:

"that thing's so low, you're invisible!"
"but you saw me, right, you can see me now?"
"yes!"
"errrrrr..."

and so on.

The usual answer to "how do you do x on that?" is "the same way as on an
upright", but people just won't accept it. x is most often steering and
balance and setting off.

> Real men ride REAL bicycles!

A bit like the original attitude of Penny-Farthing/Ordinary riders to
the new-fangled Safety... So I guess REAL Real Men ride Ordinaries! ;-)
Though as an occasional Unicyclist it's clear that anyone using such
gauche contrivances as handlebars and a second wheel is a bit of a
girl's party blouse! ;-)

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

 

[Jon]

newsgroups trimmed.

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote

Perhaps because I don't ride with RealCyclists(tm), or maybe
because they're so high and fast when pass without seeing me,
I hardly ever hear this sort of dogma from other riders.


> ryancycles wrote:
>> They don't go up hills.

Then why am I not stuck in a valley?

>> They are too heavy.

Compared to what? My self-sustained touring setup is within
5% or less of a similarly equipped upright touring bike. My
"utility recumbent" is not unreasonably heavier than many
upright "beater/errand" bikes wit fenders and baskets. My
road recumbent is not an ultralight, either, but the 4-7 pounds
difference for a similarly priced upright road bike is insignificant
compared to the spare tire I'm (and even many upright cyclists)
are carrying in body weight!

>> They are too low to the ground.
>> "that thing's so low, you're invisible!"

Oh. Have you seen my six foot rabbit named Harvey, too? %^)

>> They're slow.

Maybe with me on it! But not with one of the many
recumbent bicycle speed world record holders.

>> Real men ride REAL bicycles!

With such potential personal problems proximate to their
upright bike seats, it's perhaps particularly appropriate that
they view their bike choice as proof of manhood... %^P

Jon