Re: recumbent video



Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> I see the following gibberish right after your name when I open your
>>> message to do a reply:
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> You must be using Yahoo somehow! If an email address, why not your ISP
>>> email address?
>> I will use whatever email address I want.
>
> Yeah, but WHY not your ISP email address? What are you afraid of? I do not
> understand why anyone would want multiple email addresses. One would seem to
> be enough. Or do you also have multiple addresses for where you live in real
> life? One residence seems like it would be enough for any normal person.
> After all, you can only BE in one place at a time.

Non-portability.

--
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
 
tam wrote:
>
> I have ridden my tadpole trike for 10 years in commute mode and cycle camp
> mode.
> You will find your trike a comfortable partner gearing is fairly critical on
> a trike.

Yes, since you can not "stand and honk", you will want gearing low
enough that you are not putting excess strain on your knees and building
up too much lactic acid in your legs during longer climbs. Learning to
develop a higher cadence and pulling on the "backstroke" is also
critical to climbing well on a recumbent.

> I use 7x3 Sachs hub with a triple chain on the front that allows me to climb
> a gradient to the minimum tyre grip.
> On the Northern European plains I only need 27 of my 63 ratio s in Holland 7
> gears will do.
> I need the 63 range for Scotland.

I have a bike with a SRAM 3x7 hub and triple crank. There are only about
21 or 22 distinct ratios, with the rest being overlapping. However; the
3x7 hub does add 2 ratios on either end, which I find to be VERY useful.

Note the Sachs/SRAM 3x7 hub has been replaced by the conceptually
similar SRAM DualDrive, which now comes in 3x8 and 3x9 versions.

--
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
 
datakoll wrote:
> sprake
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sdb4ZtvJs

That elephant is upright, not recumbent.

--
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
 
On Dec 8, 6:47 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> If you went into a LBS looking for a cargo bicycle and saw several
> sitting on the sales floor fully assembled, but the staff would only
> talk to you about drop bar road bikes and FS ATBs, what would your
> reaction be?

Make an offer for my favorite at 65% of the listed asking price. Then
find a better shop, regardless of how the previous maneuver worked
out.

Chalo
 
Chalo Colina wrote:
> On Dec 8, 6:47 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> If you went into a LBS looking for a cargo bicycle and saw several
>> sitting on the sales floor fully assembled, but the staff would only
>> talk to you about drop bar road bikes and FS ATBs, what would your
>> reaction be?
>
> Make an offer for my favorite at 65% of the listed asking price. Then
> find a better shop, regardless of how the previous maneuver worked
> out.

And this is how many shops tried to NOT sell recumbent bicycles.

--
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
 
>
> I have a bike with a SRAM 3x7 hub and triple crank. There are only about
> 21 or 22 distinct ratios, with the rest being overlapping. However; the
> 3x7 hub does add 2 ratios on either end, which I find to be VERY useful.
>
> Note the Sachs/SRAM 3x7 hub has been replaced by the conceptually similar
> SRAM DualDrive, which now comes in 3x8 and 3x9 versions.
>
I tend to fit components that are very widely available-or-rather common eg.
20 inch rims-you can get a 20 inch tyre almost anywhere and its easy to
build 20 inch wheels.
On the overlapping ratios thing I chose 7x3+triple chain rings for the
range- you are correct I do not go up and down the gears much on commutes.
I will not be going for a 10 speed block set-up because you cannot use the
standard chain-is that the same for the 9 speed?.
The 7x3 has got a critical feature for touring you can change down while
stationary-a very useful feature for urban cycling.
Tam
 
tam wrote:
>> I have a bike with a SRAM 3x7 hub and triple crank. There are only about
>> 21 or 22 distinct ratios, with the rest being overlapping. However; the
>> 3x7 hub does add 2 ratios on either end, which I find to be VERY useful.
>>
>> Note the Sachs/SRAM 3x7 hub has been replaced by the conceptually similar
>> SRAM DualDrive, which now comes in 3x8 and 3x9 versions.
>>
> I tend to fit components that are very widely available-or-rather common eg.
> 20 inch rims-you can get a 20 inch tyre almost anywhere and its easy to
> build 20 inch wheels.

Here in the "colonies", one can find serviceable ISO 406-mm tires in
about every hardware and discount store, since this size is used for BMX
and children's bicycles. Therefore, it is a good choice for a touring
recumbent (bike or trike).

> On the overlapping ratios thing I chose 7x3+triple chain rings for the
> range- you are correct I do not go up and down the gears much on commutes.
> I will not be going for a 10 speed block set-up because you cannot use the
> standard chain-is that the same for the 9 speed?.

Yes, 10-speed chain is different (and much more expensive) than 9-speed.
10-speed cassettes, shifters and hubs are also generally more expensive.
Only road hubs are available in 10-speed, and these generally are not as
well sealed as ATB hubs.

> The 7x3 has got a critical feature for touring you can change down while
> stationary-a very useful feature for urban cycling.

The replacement DualDrive II has different internals than the older 3x7,
retaining the ability to shift when stationary, but also shifts better
under load.

--
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
 
tam wrote:

> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
> inevitable experience of cycling.

Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.

If you're getting a good touring bike the options are:

1) you get something similar to better to what you know, which you are
100% sure will do the job you want and you are familiar with it and how
it works and how to get the best from it;

2) you take a leap of faith towards something which /may/ be a lot
better, but it's hard to find one to try and it'll cost twice as much
for a good touring example, and you're not completely sure it will
really do what you want at all.

Given those options I'm not really surprised 'bent tourers aren't taking
over from Galaxies, even though I wouldn't swap my Streetmachine for
/any/ touring wedgie, custom built from titanium especially for me included.

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/
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> The 7x3 has got a critical feature for touring you can change down while
>> stationary-a very useful feature for urban cycling.
>
> The replacement DualDrive II has different internals than the older 3x7,
> retaining the ability to shift when stationary, but also shifts better
> under load.

What is the "replacement dualdrive II" mentioned here? Is that the same as
the SRAM Dual Drive 3x9. And, does the second number refer to the number of
cogs on the cassette? Thx.
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> tam wrote:
>
>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>
> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
[....]
>

Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
millions of serious cyclists worldwide ride uprights without discomfort.

I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to understand
that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable based on any of
several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search on "recumbent butt"
he might also be forced to consider that some "serious" cyclists find
recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or **** if you prefer.
 
"Wilson Warmouth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> tam wrote:
>>
>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>
>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
> [....]
>>
>
> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
> millions of serious cyclists worldwide ride uprights without discomfort.
>
> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to understand
> that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable based on any of
> several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search on "recumbent
> butt" he might also be forced to consider that some "serious" cyclists
> find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or **** if you prefer.
I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride the
word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much more
comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not been
reached yet.
Tam
 
"tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride the
> word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not been
> reached yet.
> Tam

Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a properly
fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit bolt upright
on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly distributed and supported
primarily by your arms and legs. The saddle should serve more as a perch or
support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle if
you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than neighborhood
riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your weight and serve
as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need to be properly sized
to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.

As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the bones
of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of them I've
seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted. Growth spurts
and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper fit and comfort
difficult. I wonder it this could have been your problem.

I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that discussion
for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Wilson Warmouth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> tam wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not understand why recumbents have not caught on for touring I
>>>> am forced to consider "serious" cyclists consider discomfort an
>>>> inevitable experience of cycling.
>>>
>>> Discomfort is a relative thing, and there are plenty of people riding
>>> wedgies that don't have any particular comfort problems with them, so
>>> they're not looking to fix something they don't find /that/ broken.
>> [....]
>>>
>>
>> Peter Clinch is of course correct. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even
>> millions [why not billions and billions] of serious cyclists worldwide
>> ride uprights without discomfort.
>
> Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is of course NEVER correct about
> anything. How could he be? He is a Medical Physics IT Officer, whatever
> the hell that is!

I get the feeling you really don't want to know.

>
> The fact is that no one in the entire history of the universe has EVER
> been comfortable on an upright bike, at least not for more than 15
> minutes. This of course is proof positive of just how amazingly stupid
> everyone is. I don't know about you, but my intelligence is insulted when
> I am doing something that makes me uncomfortable and I don't take steps to
> correct it.

Whatever.


>> I have toured on both recumbents and uprights and have come to understand
>> that both types can be either comfortable or uncomfortable based on any
>> of several factors. If poster Tam will do a Google search on "recumbent
>> butt" he might also be forced to consider that some "serious" cyclists
>> find recumbents can be a pain in the ass, or **** if you prefer.
>
> If you are dumb enough not to be able get your seat dialed in for comfort
> on a recumbent, then Hell Bells, you are too dumb to be riding any kind of
> bicycle, let alone a recumbent. I suppose you can't get your easy chair at
> home comfy either. How about your bed, you moronic imbecile!


Elementary Mr. Dolan. It's all a matter of proper fit. Even moronic
imbeciles know that.

Regards,

Wilson Warmouth
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> The 7x3 has got a critical feature for touring you can change down while
>>> stationary-a very useful feature for urban cycling.
>> The replacement DualDrive II has different internals than the older 3x7,
>> retaining the ability to shift when stationary, but also shifts better
>> under load.
>
> What is the "replacement dualdrive II" mentioned here? Is that the same as
> the SRAM Dual Drive 3x9. And, does the second number refer to the number of
> cogs on the cassette? Thx.

SRAM does not keep their old web pages around [1], but the difference in
DualDrive and DualDrive II would appear to be some minor redesign of the
shifters (cosmetic?) and the dropping of the 3x7-speed version.

The first number refers to the number of ratios in the hub, the second
the number of gears on the cassette. So a 3x9 hub offers 27 ratios.

[1] And generally has an annoying website design. :(

--
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
 
On 2007-12-03, Chalo <[email protected]> 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.

I'm in that camp. I lusted over recumbents for a long time before
finally buying one. A V-Rex with upgraded components. (supposedly
one of the better recumbents) Anyhow, I was enamored with it at
first, but it wore off. I eventually sold it because the promises
didn't pan out, and I found the bike to be, overall, less comfortable
than my upright bikes, especially on longer rides!

-Rex
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Wilson Warmouth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "tam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> I can certainly see how recumbents can be uncomfortable if they are not
>>> adjusted or designed with comfort in mind.
>>> As a 12 to 16 year old I always found uprights uncomfortable to ride the
>>> word "boneshaker" comes to mind.
>>> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much
>>> more comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.
>>> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not
>>> been reached yet.
>>> Tam
>>
>> Statistics seem to indicate that most fit people without physical
>> limitations can be comfortable after a short training period on a
>> properly fitted drop handlebar upright bike [exempting bikes you sit bolt
>> upright on]. The weight of your trunk should be properly distributed and
>> supported primarily by your arms and legs.
>
> Most folks do not have much strength in their arms, especially women.
> Further, in order to support your body in the drop bar position you also
> must have sufficient strength in your abdomen, your back, your shoulders
> and your neck. Again, most folks do not have this requisite strength.
>

Well we can agree here. Especially when you say "most folks" because I'm
not talking about "most folks". I'm talking about "serious" riders which to
me means men, women, and children who ride on a regular basis, perhaps daily
in good weather, maybe with a club on the weekends, along with a couple of
century rides now and then. Throw in a week long tour or a cross state ride
for good measure. This pretty much described my riding up until a while
back when I seem to have decided I'd rather write about riding than actually
do it. [I don't ride daily or club ride now - but what riding I do I still
split time between uprights and recumbents] People, men or women, who ride
seriously are fit to some degree simply because they do it. There are many,
many people who do this and of those I've known only a few of them have ever
been in an organized bicycle race. None have been professional bike racers.

So along with a proper fit you do need to do some training if you want to
ride long distances. This would be true for upright or recumbent riding.
But if you've convinced youself that it can't be done in comfort on an
upright then that is your truth. It isn't my truth. Nor is it the truth of
multitudes of others.



> The saddle should serve more as a perch or
>> support or resting place than as a seat. You should not *sit* on saddle
>> if you want to be comfortable for anything more demanding than
>> neighborhood riding. Your arms and legs should support much of your
>> weight and serve as shock absorbers. And of course the bike would need
>> to be properly sized to accommodate the length of your arms and legs.
>
> Yet everybody sits on the saddle because they can't support themselves
> with their arms and legs for very long. Really, only professional racers
> can ride the road bike the way it was designed to be ridden. And they have
> to train like hell in order to be able to do it.

See previous response.


>
>> As a personal observation I think it would be difficult to shake the
>> bones of the 12 to 16 year olds I've known. But as a group most of them
>> I've seen aren't riding on bikes that have been properly fitted. Growth
>> spurts and hand me down bikes during this age period make proper fit and
>> comfort difficult. I wonder it this could have been your problem.
>
> Kids are never on bikes for more than a few minutes at a time and could
> care less about fit and comfort. Very funny that you do not know this!


Well now if they are riding ill fitting bikes it might follow that they
would only want to ride them for a short time. Seems to me that more or
less proves the point. Very funny you don't get this!


>
>> I would be quite surprised if there is a single design "ideal" recumbent
>> geometry that would serve all riders well. But I'll leave that
>> discussion for others who have more informed opinions on the subject.
>
> There is a single best "ideal" design for a recumbent just as there is for
> a road bike for racers and a MTB for everyone else who is not a racer.
> Very funny that you do not know this!
>

Well Great Saint, it's good to hear that there is single best "ideal" design
for a recumbent. There's no design consensus among recumbent riders or the
recumbent industry. We are still wayfaring seekers of that Holy Recumbent
Grail.
 
Rex Kerr wrote:
> On 2007-12-03, Chalo <[email protected]> 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.
>
> I'm in that camp. I lusted over recumbents for a long time before
> finally buying one. A V-Rex with upgraded components. (supposedly
> one of the better recumbents) Anyhow, I was enamored with it at
> first, but it wore off. I eventually sold it because the promises
> didn't pan out, and I found the bike to be, overall, less comfortable
> than my upright bikes, especially on longer rides!

And here we see the common fallacy that "recumbent" is a functional
class of bike like "tourer", "racer" or "freighter", but it isn't, it's
simply a broad generalisation about the seating and crank position. It
is no more meaningful as a functional description than "upright".

Imagine for a moment a world where the recumbent is the "standard" sort
of bike...

"This guy I met had one of those upright bikes, a Burrows 8 Freight, and
he said it was brilliant for moving bulky loads about. I wanted some of
that too, so I researched upright bikes and found this one called a Trek
Madone that everyone raved about as a fantastic machine, so I bought one
and tried to get a trolley-load of shopping home on it. Talk about
****, it just didn't do what I wanted at all!"

"A recumbent" is not an end point, so there is little to be gained by
finding "one of the better ones" and buying it assuming it will live up
to the best features promised across a range of very different machines.
My 'bent, a tourer, is very good for touring. It isn't much good for
speed, despite speed being something recumbents are /potentially/
superior at. One needs to select a bike by its functional class and its
ability to perform the *function*, like touring, or racing, or carrying
freight, or folding up compactly, or whatever. You don't get that by
deciding you want "an upright bike" or "a recumbent bike". I think a
lot of people who have been disappointed with recumbents had the wrong
machine, because they thought "a recumbent" was one of a functional
class of bikes which is meant to have the speed and handling of a racer,
the all day comfort of a tourer, the nippy handling of an urban bike,
the cargo capacity of a freighter and so on. Nobody makes sweeping
claims for "upright bikes", they are careful to specify the *type* of
bike, and that is even more important with recumbents because they vary
much more than uprights.

I have ridden upright bikes that suck, and I have ridden upright bikes
that were not suitable for all functional purposes (my MTB is horrible
as a town bike, for example, and my freighter doesn't really do it
off-road). That doesn't put me off upright bikes, it simply informs me
that you need the right one for a given job. And it's the same case for
recumbents.

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/
 
tam wrote:

> Since my return to cycling 10+ years ago I find my recumbent trike much more
> comfortable than the uprights I have ridden recently.

Well, I find my touring 'bent is more comfortable than my Brompton
folder or my 8 Freight cargo bike or my MTB, but there's more to
selecting a bike than absolute comfort: as long as the bike is
comfortable *enough* for the job it has to do other functional aspects
can easily trump it. If I'll be doing 10 miles off-road through the
Cairngorms on rough landy tracks to get to the start of a walk I'll take
the MTB: it won't be outrageously comfy but it will be okay and I'll get
where I want to be a great deal quicker and technially more easily than
if I take my 'bent tourer.

> Problem with recumbents seems to be that the "ideal" geometry has not been
> reached yet.

There is no such thing, exactly as is the case for uprights. A racer
has a very different geometry to a Dutch roadster because they have very
different functional purposes, and you try the geometry of one for the
function of the other and it is found wanting. The geometry of HP Vel's
Streetmachine and Spirit are very different. They are both very comfy
but in different ways, with the Spirit more /immediately/ comfortable
but the Streetmachine better over the course of 50 miles, thanks to
better aerodynamics allowing you to do it quicker and more support for
your back spreading your weight more. Which is "more comfortable"?
Well, are you going to do 50 miles or 5? because each has a different
answer as the bikes are designed to suit particular purposes, the Spirit
for shorter trips and the Streetmachine for longer ones.

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/
 
Thanks Wilson!!!!! GREAT response.

I wonder what group I fall in to???? I have a Sun Tadpole recumbent,
a Trek 3900 upright mountain bike, AND a Trek 820. The 820 is the
oldest bike that I have. They ALL have their uses and I switch from
time to time. But I find myself ((at age 50)) more often opting for
the Sun. Simply because I don't feel beat-half-to-death after a day
long ride. ESPECIALLY if the cold winter weather that we are having
right now.

And to DOLAN.......SHUT THE F*#K UP!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Re: Recumbent video from Ed Dolan
Replies
2
Views
805
Recumbent bicycles
Roger Zoul
R
NMERider
Unfaired Recumbent 29.76 Mile World Hour Record Video
Replies
0
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
NMERider
NMERider
R
It is amazing how nice it is to ride recumbent trikes
Replies
1
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
cobbwheels
cobbwheels
R
ICE Full Fat Trike Recumbent
Replies
1
Views
2K
Recumbent bicycles
rhodesbennett
R
Mihai
American rider touring Europe on a recumbent bike
Replies
19
Views
5K
Recumbent bicycles
bikerjohn
bikerjohn
Top Bottom Back