Re: What is it about the mileage?

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] wrote:
> Papa Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If all we
>> wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, we
>> would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead of a car likely
>> prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!
>
> There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
> named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail you
> see is inversely proportional to the sophistication (and hence, speed) of
> your means of transportation. You'll see more driving than you would
> flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more interested in
> rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best option is to walk.
> Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of the
> best compromises between covering ground and still seeing something.[...]

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[DougC]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
> riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
> hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
> balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
> durable tires.
>
> [1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.
>

I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
particular the $1700 X-3 AX:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=388&blogId=1

However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
others that uses the same frame.

....Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean
your upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas
seem to be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built
with relatively low seating.
.....
So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as
on most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning
hard the inside rear wheel tends to lift....

--------

The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:

http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html

Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see
much talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very
agile, it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than
any other trike around I think.

Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a
chain under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the
tadpole trikes do it....
~

 

[Tom Sherman]

Doug Cimper wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
>> riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
>> hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
>> balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
>> durable tires.
>>
>> [1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.
>>
>
> I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
> particular the $1700 X-3 AX:
>
> http://www.bentrideronline.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=388&blogId=1
>
>
> However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
> others that uses the same frame.
>
> ...Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
> current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
> front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
> front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean
> your upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas
> seem to be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built
> with relatively low seating.
> ....
> So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
> the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as
> on most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning
> hard the inside rear wheel tends to lift....
>
> --------
>
> The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:
>
> http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html
>
Add the Anthrotech to the list of high seat tadpoles:
<http://www.anthrotech.de/Pages-e/index-e.html>.

> Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see
> much talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very
> agile, it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than
> any other trike around I think.
>
> Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a
> chain under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the
> tadpole trikes do it....
> ~
The "Chain Weasel" has a relatively low seat:
<http://www.hase-bikes.com/ens/kettwieselal/index.php>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful