H
Hillel
Guest
"Gary Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I agree that LWB's are better suited for shorter riders. I have owned a Rans Rocket, Vision R-40,
> Rans V-Rex and Burley Canto. The SWB's are a blast to ride but, I feel that my weight is too far
> forward. Not only that, I don't like being so close to the riser. The only SWB that didn't give me
> that feeling was a USS R-40. The OSS R-40 that I had was a small frame and the rear wheel actually
> came off the ground in an emergency braking situation. I agree that the LWB's have better weight
> distribution. Generally the seats seem to be a little lower to the ground depending on the design.
> Short wheel base designs just aren't conducive to shorter riders but, that doesn't stop me from
> riding my V-Rex.
I've spent some time on a Rans Stratus and it's a really nice bike however, I
> like a higher bottom bracket.
>
> It has been interesting to hear what other's are riding and why. There is no such thing as the
> perfect recumbent and I think that's why many of us have owned more than one. Not only that, they
> are so much fun to ride!
>
I have a 30" inseam and 40.5" x-seam. I found that the seats on the LWB bikes generally fit better,
but I also like the higher BB and maneuverability on SWB bikes. I found that the Rotator Tiger fits
great and has a much better weight distribution. I washed out the rear wheel a few times on my
Haluzak while breaking on a curve, but have yet to lift the rear on the Tiger. The hard part with
the Tiger is getting the seat positioned just right. I have it right on top of the mid-drive, and
you are limited where you can put the hose clamps with the mid-drive tab in the way.
news:[email protected]...
> I agree that LWB's are better suited for shorter riders. I have owned a Rans Rocket, Vision R-40,
> Rans V-Rex and Burley Canto. The SWB's are a blast to ride but, I feel that my weight is too far
> forward. Not only that, I don't like being so close to the riser. The only SWB that didn't give me
> that feeling was a USS R-40. The OSS R-40 that I had was a small frame and the rear wheel actually
> came off the ground in an emergency braking situation. I agree that the LWB's have better weight
> distribution. Generally the seats seem to be a little lower to the ground depending on the design.
> Short wheel base designs just aren't conducive to shorter riders but, that doesn't stop me from
> riding my V-Rex.
> like a higher bottom bracket.
>
> It has been interesting to hear what other's are riding and why. There is no such thing as the
> perfect recumbent and I think that's why many of us have owned more than one. Not only that, they
> are so much fun to ride!
>
I have a 30" inseam and 40.5" x-seam. I found that the seats on the LWB bikes generally fit better,
but I also like the higher BB and maneuverability on SWB bikes. I found that the Rotator Tiger fits
great and has a much better weight distribution. I washed out the rear wheel a few times on my
Haluzak while breaking on a curve, but have yet to lift the rear on the Tiger. The hard part with
the Tiger is getting the seat positioned just right. I have it right on top of the mid-drive, and
you are limited where you can put the hose clamps with the mid-drive tab in the way.