Trike Characteristics

[Mike Fox]

Thanks for the Bent Rider web page URL; it has lots of good info.

Took my 2nd trike ride today (on a Greenspeed) and like it. Fast
downhill and slow up compared to a bike. Still have a broken hand
from my bike crash 2 weeks ago and can't put any weight on it, so
being able to get out on the trike was great.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a trike, but there's a lot of
choices out there. The first choice is 'delta' or 'tadepole'. Can
someone tell me where to find out where the virtures and vices of each
type might be found?

Thanks
Mike

 

[Grolsch]

"Mike Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the Bent Rider web page URL; it has lots of good info.
>
> Took my 2nd trike ride today (on a Greenspeed) and like it. Fast
> downhill and slow up compared to a bike. Still have a broken hand
> from my bike crash 2 weeks ago and can't put any weight on it, so
> being able to get out on the trike was great.
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a trike, but there's a lot of
> choices out there. The first choice is 'delta' or 'tadepole'. Can
> someone tell me where to find out where the virtures and vices of each
> type might be found?
>
> Thanks
> Mike

Well as far as safety is concerned, the Tadpole trikes are very low to the
ground thus are very stable. They can be flipped however. The brake-steer
can be an issue, it was for me on a decente where I let the speed get away
on me. The even modulation of the brakes and steering comes after some
riding. The relaxed riding is to be learned after coming off of conventional
bikes. As for reliability, My Catrike has done 5400km this past year, not
one problem, cept two or three flats.

As for design advantages/disadvantages.

Tadpole +'s - (generally speaking) - lighter, more performance oriented,
smaller, lower. shorter. easier to transport. simpler design
Delta +'s - probably more relaxed riding, um, that all I can come up with.

Grolsch

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:52:59 GMT, Grolsch <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a trike, but there's a lot of
> > choices out there. The first choice is 'delta' or 'tadepole'.
> > Can someone tell me where to find out where the virtures and vices
> > of each type might be found?
>
> Well as far as safety is concerned, the Tadpole trikes are very low
> to the ground thus are very stable.

Even if a tadpole was the same height as a similar delta it would be
more stable - the geometry is inherently more stable.

> They can be flipped however.

You have to be enjoying yourself quite a lot to flip a low tadpole.
When I have, I haven't hurt myself much - there's not far to fall.
You wouldn't want to flip it in traffic, but then again you wouldn't
want to go over the handlebars of a upright or flip a delta, both of
which would be rather more likely.

> Tadpole +'s - (generally speaking) - lighter, more performance oriented,
> smaller, lower. shorter. easier to transport. simpler design
> Delta +'s - probably more relaxed riding, um, that all I can come up with.

That tends to be true, but beyond the inherent stability they are all
issues that arise because that's what the designer has gone for. That
is, if you want a performance orientated trike, you will go tadpole
for the stability. If you're performance oriented you will be trying
to be light, low, short and so on, so tadpoles tend to be lighter,
lower etc.

If you don't care about the performance, then you will tend to be
heavier, higher and so on. You will probably then have designed as a
delta because it's easier to design for steering one wheel than two,
so you simplify your design going delta.

If you want to ride fast, you want tadpole. If you don't want to ride
fast, it doesn't matter, but some features (like load carrying,
accommodating very variable driver stature) may be more likely to be
found on a delta.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[DougC]

Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> Tadpole +'s - (generally speaking) - lighter, more performance oriented,
>> smaller, lower. shorter. easier to transport. simpler design
>> Delta +'s - probably more relaxed riding, um, that all I can come up with.
>
> That tends to be true, but beyond the inherent stability they are all
> issues that arise because that's what the designer has gone for.

I haven't owned either type of trike, but tend to wonder how useful in
practice the "sports-car like handling" of low tadpoles really is. Being
built low to the ground is useful if you want to put a full fairing on
the trike, but otherwise I can't see much use that would regularly matter.

(Also with recumbents, I have seen it mentioned too many times that
SWB's have handling that is "quicker" than longer types, when I found it
to be simply "jittery" and generally of no use in actual riding. Most of
the time you ride, you're riding in a very-nearly-straight line, and LWB
recumbents are better at that than SWB's are. Delta trikes tend to have
longer wheelbases than tadpoles, and so delta trikes are going to be
better at holding straight lines than tadpoles are.)

The main advantage of trikes I see mentioned is that there's no
balancing required, and you get that with either type. ...The main
disadvantage seems to be that they're slower than most any bike (I don't
recall anyone ever claiming they were faster on an unfaired trike than
on an unfaired bike)--and once again, you get that with either type as
well.

I'd love the opportunity to test both types of trikes for a month or so
but don't see much chance of that happening, and I'm not likely to buy
both just to find out the expensive way.
---------
Also we note, with other motor vehicles:
With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
tadpoles are not. Why is this? Yes I've seen the recent Piaggio MP3 but
it's the exception. I don't see that it's much easier to add two wheels
on the rear than it is to add two wheels on the front. If you want to
convert a motorcycle to a delta, you have to add some kind of drive
system; if you want to convert the same motorcycle to a tadpole, you
have the complexity of a steering system. What is true is that
motorcycles are usually loaded towards the rear, and so I would bet
others guessed that was where the extra wheel would benefit most.

With 3-wheel cars (mostly Euro/British kit cars) there have been a
number of tadpole designs in the last few decades--but all these shared
a common characteristic, in that they were performance-oriented models
that didn't offer much carrying capacity other than two passengers. Also
notable is that (as far as I have casually found) no regular factory
manufactured these as production vehicles...... Most cars that are built
as production vehicles and intended for "utility" or normal use tend to
be deltas (Reliant Robin).

>
> If you want to ride fast, you want tadpole. If you don't want to ride
> fast, it doesn't matter, but some features (like load carrying,
> accommodating very variable driver stature) may be more likely to be
> found on a delta.

This is true--most deltas carry most of their weight on the rear wheels,
which don't have to be weakened by being able to turn--so it is less
expensive to build a delta with a higher weight capacity. Also with
people of limited mobility (elderly, obese, handicapped) deltas tend to
sit higher off the ground which is a major advantage, making it easier
to get on and off the thing.
~

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:23:49 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > That tends to be true, but beyond the inherent stability they are all
> > issues that arise because that's what the designer has gone for.
>
> I haven't owned either type of trike, but tend to wonder how useful in
> practice the "sports-car like handling" of low tadpoles really is.

It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.

> With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
> tadpoles are not. Why is this?

Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.

In terms of actual production vehicles, I think there at least as many
tadpoles as deltas, and while the deltas usually have appalling
handling and cornering (reliant robin), some of teh tadpoles are
remarkably quick and agile, especially considering their age.

> Yes I've seen the recent Piaggio MP3 but it's the exception.

Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.

> notable is that (as far as I have casually found) no regular
> factory manufactured these as production vehicles...... Most cars
> that are built as production vehicles and intended for "utility" or
> normal use tend to be deltas (Reliant Robin).

See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to mind
were production vehicles and far from modern.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

On Jul 4, 2:06 pm, Ian "teh" SMith wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:23:49 -0500, DougC wrote:
> > Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > > That tends to be true, but beyond the inherent stability they are all
> > > issues that arise because that's what the designer has gone for.
>
> > I haven't owned either type of trike, but tend to wonder how useful in
> > practice the "sports-car like handling" of low tadpoles really is.
>
> It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.
>
> > With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
> > tadpoles are not. Why is this?
>
> Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
> typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
> crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.
>
> In terms of actual production vehicles, I think there at least as many
> tadpoles as deltas, and while the deltas usually have appalling
> handling and cornering (reliant robin), some of teh tadpoles are
> remarkably quick and agile, especially considering their age.
>
> > Yes I've seen the recent Piaggio MP3 but it's the exception.
>
> Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
>
> > notable is that (as far as I have casually found) no regular
> > factory manufactured these as production vehicles...... Most cars
> > that are built as production vehicles and intended for "utility" or
> > normal use tend to be deltas (Reliant Robin).
>
> See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to mind
> were production vehicles and far from modern.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

The word "teh" appears four (4) times in the above post. What does
"teh" mean?

Is "SMith" a special variant of "Smith"?

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

 

[MkTm]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:23:49 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> That tends to be true, but beyond the inherent stability they are all
>>> issues that arise because that's what the designer has gone for.
>> I haven't owned either type of trike, but tend to wonder how useful in
>> practice the "sports-car like handling" of low tadpoles really is.
>
> It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.
>
>> With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
>> tadpoles are not. Why is this?
>
> Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
> typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
> crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.
>
> In terms of actual production vehicles, I think there at least as many
> tadpoles as deltas, and while the deltas usually have appalling
> handling and cornering (reliant robin), some of teh tadpoles are
> remarkably quick and agile, especially considering their age.
>
>> Yes I've seen the recent Piaggio MP3 but it's the exception.
>
> Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
>
>> notable is that (as far as I have casually found) no regular
>> factory manufactured these as production vehicles...... Most cars
>> that are built as production vehicles and intended for "utility" or
>> normal use tend to be deltas (Reliant Robin).
>
> See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to mind
> were production vehicles and far from modern.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

I don't know if this info has been posted here, but Harley Davidson is
considering the tadpole technology.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7440/

 

[DougC]

Ian Smith wrote:
> It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.
Yes but the discussion was about the merits of each--and if a tadpole is
built primarily to do something that the average rider spends very
little time doing anyway, then should we say that's an advantage or not?

>> With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
>> tadpoles are not. Why is this?
>
> Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
> typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
> crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.
>
No, I'm nearing 40 years old, have traveled all over the US (but not
much abroad), and have likely seen hundreds of delta-trike motorcycles
on the road, but not once have I ever seen even one tadpole-style
motorcycle. It may be different elsewhere, but in the US, tadpole-trike
motorcycles are pretty darn rare.

> In terms of actual production vehicles, I think there at least as many
> tadpoles as deltas, and while the deltas usually have appalling
> handling and cornering (reliant robin), some of teh tadpoles are
> remarkably quick and agile, especially considering their age.
>

>> Yes I've seen the recent Piaggio MP3 but it's the exception.
>
> Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
>

Yes and we see what runaway commercial successes they were.

Meanwhile, if you still want a utility truck/golf-cart vehicle in a
delta configuration, you can get it right now from a number of different
companies.
-------
I just searched the first 10 pages of Google Images, and out of 210
images, there was ONE of a tadpole-style motorcycle.

Some of the (US) companies /currently/ manufacturing delta-conversion kits:
Champion
Wright Bros.
Lehman
Voyager
Hannigan
C.S.C.

,,,,,
I did happen across-

http://reversetrike.com/home.html

--of the complete-built tadpoles they listed, all but two cost over
$20,000. The Piaggio is listed, but isn't available yet. Of the kits
they listed, only one was a conversion kit for an existing motorcycle
(the Axis V2 kit) even though most of the kits don't incorporate any
leaning mechanism.

>> notable is that (as far as I have casually found) no regular
>> factory manufactured these as production vehicles...... Most cars
>> that are built as production vehicles and intended for "utility" or
>> normal use tend to be deltas (Reliant Robin).
>
> See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to mind
> were production vehicles and far from modern.

So how come they didn't keep making them then?
~

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:55:47 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.
> Yes but the discussion was about the merits of each--and if a tadpole is
> built primarily to do something that the average rider spends very
> little time doing anyway, then should we say that's an advantage or not?

What, having fun?
It is an advantage to have a vehicle that encourages you to enjoy
riding it, yes.

> >> With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
> >> tadpoles are not. Why is this?
> >
> > Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
> > typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
> > crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.
> >
> No, I'm nearing 40 years old, have traveled all over the US (but not
> much abroad), and have likely seen hundreds of delta-trike motorcycles
> on the road, but not once have I ever seen even one tadpole-style
> motorcycle. It may be different elsewhere, but in the US, tadpole-trike
> motorcycles are pretty darn rare.

Indeed, but that's motorcycles, not cars. It's much more difficult to
arrnage a motorbike-like driving arrangement on a tadpole than it is a
delta.

> > Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
>
> Yes and we see what runaway commercial successes they were.

Arguably (it has certainly been argued), BMW is only in existence
today because of teh success of teh Isetta. I assume you have heard
of BMW?

Three wheels don't suit big vehicles. In america, you (society as a
whole) don't regard anything small as a success, so you're unlikely to
see a car layout that favours small cars.

> I just searched the first 10 pages of Google Images, and out of 210
> images, there was ONE of a tadpole-style motorcycle.
>
> Some of the (US) companies /currently/ manufacturing delta-conversion kits:

Yes, but as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, that's motorcycle
conversions, for peoiple that want to ride a thing like a motorcycle,
and that's much MUCH easier to do as a delta than as a tadpole. You
just lift teh whole front end off a motorbike and you have teh riding
position, teh controls, the steering mechanicals and suspension all
sorted with next-to zero effort.

> > See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to
> > mind were production vehicles and far from modern.
>
> So how come they didn't keep making them then?

Because they are small, and your countrymen, on average, like big.

There is very little demand for three-wheel vcehicles as a whole.
Those taht do remain are for niche markets with low requirements and
it's easier to make a delta (as I said in my first post on teh topic).
If there was demand for a high-speed fast-cornering golf cart, there
probably would be tadpole golf carts.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[gotbent]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:55:47 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>> > It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to be fun. It _is_ fun.
>> Yes but the discussion was about the merits of each--and if a tadpole is
>> built primarily to do something that the average rider spends very
>> little time doing anyway, then should we say that's an advantage or not?
>
> What, having fun?
> It is an advantage to have a vehicle that encourages you to enjoy
> riding it, yes.
>
>> >> With motorcycles--deltas and delta conversions are common, where
>> >> tadpoles are not. Why is this?
>> >
>> > Becasue you've only seen crusty bikers type things, which are
>> > typically set up to be 'driven' like a bike and typically are a fairly
>> > crude case of welding teh front of a bike on teh back of a car.
>> >
>> No, I'm nearing 40 years old, have traveled all over the US (but not
>> much abroad), and have likely seen hundreds of delta-trike motorcycles
>> on the road, but not once have I ever seen even one tadpole-style
>> motorcycle. It may be different elsewhere, but in the US, tadpole-trike
>> motorcycles are pretty darn rare.
>
> Indeed, but that's motorcycles, not cars. It's much more difficult to
> arrnage a motorbike-like driving arrangement on a tadpole than it is a
> delta.
>
>> > Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
>>
>> Yes and we see what runaway commercial successes they were.
>
> Arguably (it has certainly been argued), BMW is only in existence
> today because of teh success of teh Isetta. I assume you have heard
> of BMW?

Wasn't the Isetta a four wheeler, with the two in back very close together?
I remember walking to class in Philly in the early 60's and seeing a parking
lot attendent argue with a guy who wanted to park his own car in the lot.
The attendent won the argument, climbed in, closed the door and proceeded to
park flush to a wall. The owner was laughing his ass off as I walked on to
school, because the guy in the car couldn't open the door or find reverse.


>
> Three wheels don't suit big vehicles. In america, you (society as a
> whole) don't regard anything small as a success, so you're unlikely to
> see a car layout that favours small cars.

A good example of this would be Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion car.
>
>> I just searched the first 10 pages of Google Images, and out of 210
>> images, there was ONE of a tadpole-style motorcycle.
>>
>> Some of the (US) companies /currently/ manufacturing delta-conversion
>> kits:
>
> Yes, but as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, that's motorcycle
> conversions, for peoiple that want to ride a thing like a motorcycle,
> and that's much MUCH easier to do as a delta than as a tadpole. You
> just lift teh whole front end off a motorbike and you have teh riding
> position, teh controls, the steering mechanicals and suspension all
> sorted with next-to zero effort.
>
>> > See above. Lomax are kit-cars, teh other three that sprung to
>> > mind were production vehicles and far from modern.
>>
>> So how come they didn't keep making them then?
>
> Because they are small, and your countrymen, on average, like big.
>
> There is very little demand for three-wheel vcehicles as a whole.
> Those taht do remain are for niche markets with low requirements and
> it's easier to make a delta (as I said in my first post on teh topic).
> If there was demand for a high-speed fast-cornering golf cart, there
> probably would be tadpole golf carts.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:57:37 -0500, gotbent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:55:47 -0500, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> >> > Not really - Lomax, Morgan, Mescherschmidt, Isetta.
> >>
> >> Yes and we see what runaway commercial successes they were.
> >
> > Arguably (it has certainly been argued), BMW is only in existence
> > today because of teh success of teh Isetta. I assume you have heard
> > of BMW?
>
> Wasn't the Isetta a four wheeler, with the two in back very close together?

Yes, but in terms of behaviour, I was regarding it as a sort of
four-wheel tadpole. I know this is actually a bit incoherent, and I
should probably have highlighted it earlier. Apologies.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Ian "teh" SMith wrote:
>
> Three wheels don't suit big vehicles. In america, you (society as a
> whole) don't regard anything small as a success, so you're unlikely to
> see a car layout that favours small cars....

See <http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/FACE/Reports/REPORT-047.htm>.

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