recumbent video

[DougC]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> All uprights are basically the same given a few degrees of difference here
> and there. A $75. Holiday Huffy is not all that different from a $2000.
> Cinelli road bike as far as the basic design goes.

This is one odd point about upright bicycles--the biggest complaint that
LBS's probably hear is riding discomfort, yet spending more for an
upright bicycle doesn't get you anything more comfortable, it only gets
you something that weighs less--which is not usually a major complaint.

Bicycle companies have known this for a long time, they've pretty much
given up on claiming that any of their upper-end bikes are comfortable.
They emphasize low weights and "racing heritage".

> Trikes are a special
> breed and can be designed as crazily as anyone desires. Deltas are more
> bike-like and tadpoles are more go-cart-like.
>

I contend that tadpole trikes are inferior to deltas, for the simple
reason that the steering mechanisms of tadpoles is more-susceptible to
flexing and misalignment, and therefore more likely to suffer scrub
losses. The only advantage a typical (low-set) tadpole can claim is that
it can sustain higher cornering forces than a typical delta--but most of
the time when one rides any kind of bicycle, one is riding in basically
straight lines. It doesn't make any sense to choose a trike that
sacrifices straight-line riding riding efficiency for extra cornering
ability, when most of the time you're going to be riding in straight lines.

> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
> population.
>

I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
......
In that respect--we might view anything shorter than a standard LWB as a
bike that is trying to maintain the LWB comfort, while trying to avoid
all the LWB weight. The weight is not usually a problem however, if the
local terrain is even moderately flat then comfort is typically a much
larger issue.

-------

Overwhelmingly the impression I get from other cyclists is that they are
more concerned with looking odd than they are with being physically
uncomfortable.

I doubt I'll live to see recumbents become mainstream. To recognize the
advantages, one must ride a lot of miles on them often. The conditions
necessary to force a lot of US drivers onto bicycles would be drastic,
to put it mildly.
~

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the newsreader.
>>> It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
>> frugal Mr. Dolan.
>
> There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I still
> do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to use it
> in connection with your "news server."

Where does Mr. Dolan get this idea that Yahoo has anything to do with
how I use Usenet (other than a reply to email address)?

>>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
>> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
>
> Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I do
> not see the 'de' anymore.

That was the service which is now news.individual.net, which is no
longer free.

> Secondly, it is a "news
>> server" and not a "newsreader".
>
> Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
> ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra for
> this.

No, a news server is something that collects and propagates Usenet
messages. A newsreader is software you install on your computer that
allows you to read and post using the news server.

Your news server appears to be <http://www.giganews.com>, which iw.net
may well provide at no additional charge.

> I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
>> newsreader, which is also free.
>
> So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then?

No, Thunderbird is provided as free-ware by the Mozilla Foundation, and
is a continuation of the old Netscape News and Mail, which itself is a
continuation of work done by someone at 6th & Springfield [1] and has
nothing at all to do with Yahoo.

> It seems you are going a long way
> around for not much benefit that I can see. Does not your ISP give you
> everything my ISP gives me at no extra charge? I am assuming your OS is
> Windows XP.

The benefit of not using micro$oft products to interface with the
outside world, is that 99+% of email viruses and other nasties are
written to attach micro$oft products. In addition, micro$oft products do
odd, non-standard things at times, and are clunky for this use.

> I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
> "newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to focus
> on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members of the
> group who would like to know something about this too.

See above. Cost, user interface, avoiding micro$oft related nasties.

>> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
>> such.
>
> I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
>
>> [2] ibid.
>
> Ditto.

Sheesh!

> But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
> figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or just a
> criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and yet he
> seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.

It is very difficult to track people down on the Internet, unless you
have access to ISP records (e.g. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). In
many ways this is unfortunate, since allows for endless amount of spam
that the originators do not have to pay for (bandwidth costs money) and
anonymous cowards on Usenet.

[1] No, the 6th & Springfield part is NOT a joke.

--
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

 

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2007-12-08, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:

>> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
>> population.
>>
>
> I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
> tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
> same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.

What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
feet longer.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-12-08, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>> Surely there is an ideal recumbent that is best suited for the general
>>> population.
>>>
>> I would opine that the standard LWB would be it. Most everyone who has
>> tried test-riding my LWB could do it fairly quickly, but many of the
>> same group of people could not ride the 20/26" SWB I owned previously.
>
> What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
> bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
> lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
> can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
> feet longer.

Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.

Note that it is actually easier to manuveur a LWB in tight spaces, since
the chainring out front on a SWB tends to scratch and mar things in its
path.

--
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 Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> Steve Gravrock wrote:

>> What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
>> bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
>> lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
>> can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
>> feet longer.
>
> Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
> in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
> flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.

That must've been quite a ride.


cheers,
Tom

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> What is the advantage of using Yahoo (which is web based) like you are
>>>>> compared to my own OS newsreader? My ISP fully supports the
>>>>> newsreader. It just doesn't make any sense to go elsewhere.
>>>> My ISP is no additional charge - something that should appeal to the
>>>> frugal Mr. Dolan.
>>> There is no additional charge for my Windows Mail newsreader either. I
>>> still do not see what is the advantage of using Yahoo, unless you have to
>>> use it in connection with your "news server."
>> Where does Mr. Dolan get this idea that Yahoo has anything to do with how
>> I use Usenet (other than a reply to email address)?
>
> 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.

>>>>> Why did you stop using that free newsreader based in Germany?
>>>> Since I am still using <news.motzarella.org>[1], which is free and based
>>>> in Germany, this question makes no sense.
>>> Well, it does make some sense since they obviously changed their name. I
>>> do not see the 'de' anymore.
>> That was the service which is now news.individual.net, which is no longer
>> free.
>>
>>> Secondly, it is a "news
>>>> server" and not a "newsreader".
>>> Are they not one and the same? Pray tell, who is my news server? Is it my
>>> ISP which is "news.iw.net"? Again, if so, I am not paying anything extra
>>> for this.
>> No, a news server is something that collects and propagates Usenet
>> messages. A newsreader is software you install on your computer that
>> allows you to read and post using the news server.
>
> Thanks! I never really understood any of that. Now I do!
>
>> Your news server appears to be <http://www.giganews.com>, which iw.net may
>> well provide at no additional charge.
>
> I did not know that. All I have ever noticed was the "news.iw.net" which I
> thought was my ISP news server.

Well, your headers list giganews as your Usenet provider.

>>> I am using Thunderbird [2] as a
>>>> newsreader, which is also free.
>>> So Thunderbird is part of Yahoo then?
>> No, Thunderbird is provided as free-ware by the Mozilla Foundation, and is
>> a continuation of the old Netscape News and Mail, which itself is a
>> continuation of work done by someone at 6th & Springfield [1] and has
>> nothing at all to do with Yahoo.
>>
>>> It seems you are going a long way around for not much benefit that I can
>>> see. Does not your ISP give you everything my ISP gives me at no extra
>>> charge? I am assuming your OS is Windows XP.
>> The benefit of not using micro$oft products to interface with the outside
>> world, is that 99+% of email viruses and other nasties are written to
>> attach micro$oft products. In addition, micro$oft products do odd,
>> non-standard things at times, and are clunky for this use.
>
> But if you don't open unknown attachments what is the risk? Windows Mail,
> like Outlook Express before it, is as smooth and easy as it gets. I think
> you have gone to a lot of trouble to get around Microsoft for nothing. I do
> use Firefox for my browser, but I notice there are nasties beginning to
> invade it too, just like Internet Explorer. Not even Apple can guarantee
> anything to be safe.

Do you run a good anti-spyware program? If not, you likely have a lot of
unwanted **** installed on your computer.

>>> I would like you to tell me the benefits of your "news server" and your
>>> "newsreader" compared to mine. Put on your professor's cap and try to
>>> focus on that question s'il vous plait. I think there are other members
>>> of the group who would like to know something about this too.
>> See above. Cost, user interface, avoiding micro$oft related nasties.
>
> There is no cost involved and your prejudice against Microsoft borders on
> paranoia, but you may well have your reasons. The interface could not be
> better.

Sorry, but I am forced to use Outlook at work. That is enough.

>>>> [1] As a look at the headers would reveal, if Windows Mail is capable of
>>>> such.
>>> I never look at headers. That is for technical types.
>>>
>>>> [2] ibid.
>>> Ditto.
>> Sheesh!
>>
>>> But since you know so much about headers, why is it that you could never
>>> figure out who Johnny NoCom was? Was he smarter than you perhaps - or
>>> just a criminal? Jon Meinecke could never figure out any of it either and
>>> yet he seemed to know a lot about Usenet and how it works.
>> It is very difficult to track people down on the Internet, unless you have
>> access to ISP records (e.g. FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.). In many
>> ways this is unfortunate, since allows for endless amount of spam that the
>> originators do not have to pay for (bandwidth costs money) and anonymous
>> cowards on Usenet.
>
> Understood. Thanks.

--
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]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>> Steve Gravrock wrote:
>
>>> What do LWB riders do about storage? Even regular uprights have been a
>>> bit of a pain to maneuver in and out of most of the apartments I've
>>> lived in, due to small landings or contrained spaces inside the door. I
>>> can't imagine that it would be any easier with a bike that's a couple of
>>> feet longer.
>> Oh foo! I kept a LWB recumbent, a SWB recumbent an ATB and a BoB trailer
>> in a 350 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. I had to negotiate four (4)
>> flights of stairs with tight corners on the landings.
>
> That must've been quite a ride.

Yep, who says recumbents can't do stairs!

--
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]

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

 

[datakoll]

sprake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sdb4ZtvJs

 

[Tom Sherman]

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

 

[Chalo]

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

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

 

[Rex Kerr]

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

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/

 

[Wilson Warmouth]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> You do not need to train at all in order to ride a recumbent long distance
> and to be perfectly comfortable doing so as long as you have some minimal
> cardiovasular fitness.

Only Great Saints such as yourself can ride recumbent bikes long distances
with no training. Regular mortals such as myself require training for
centuries and such.

 

[tam]

>>
>> 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!
>
I have found over the years the exact configuration of
1 Seat angle
2 Distance from seat back to crank centre.
3 Crank length.
4 Crank centre to ground that suits me.
I find that even 1/2 inch makes a big difference to comfort on my recumbent
trike over 3 hours touring.
Tam

 

[ZBicyclist]

tam wrote:
>>> 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!
>>
> I have found over the years the exact configuration of
> 1 Seat angle
> 2 Distance from seat back to crank centre.
> 3 Crank length.
> 4 Crank centre to ground that suits me.
> I find that even 1/2 inch makes a big difference to comfort on my
> recumbent trike over 3 hours touring.
> Tam

Just like an upright (although the exact parts to be adjusted differ)

--
Mike Kruger
the CIA created more controversy today by acknowledging that it
accidentally returned several interrogation tapes to Blockbuster.
[Andy Borowitz]

 

[Peter Clinch]

ZBicyclist wrote:
> tam wrote:

>> I have found over the years the exact configuration of
>> 1 Seat angle
>> 2 Distance from seat back to crank centre.
>> 3 Crank length.
>> 4 Crank centre to ground that suits me.
>> I find that even 1/2 inch makes a big difference to comfort on my
>> recumbent trike over 3 hours touring.
>> Tam
>
> Just like an upright (although the exact parts to be adjusted differ)

I actually find I'm fussier on an upright than I am on my 'bent. My
wife was suffering a bit of achilles rub at the end of a week's touring
so we swapped bikes for a change in position (mine is more higher with a
more upright seat angle). The only factor of discomfort I had from
changing 1, 3 and 4 in Tam's list was a bit of a tug on the hamstrings
because she has longer legs than I do.

I'd say ZBicyclist is right on the money suggesting that a 'bent isn't
intrinsically different from a wedgie as regards needing to tuning for
the rider.

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/

 

[Rex Kerr]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Exactly what was the discomfort? I have never in my life heard a tale of woe
> like yours! Are you perhaps of an imbecilic nature? Yea, that would explain
> it!


Imbecilic? Exactly! You've got me figured out! Darn, my secret is
out! BTW, saying that I find an upright bike to be more comfortable
isn't a very grandiose tale of woe.

 

[Rex Kerr]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Exactly what was the discomfort? I have never in my life heard a tale of woe
> like yours! Are you perhaps of an imbecilic nature? Yea, that would explain
> it!


Imbecilic? Exactly! You've got me figured out! Darn, my secret is
out! BTW, saying that I find an upright bike to be more comfortable
isn't a very grandiose tale of woe.