Road Cycling · Public discussion

Two wheels does it

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 134 posts · 2,460 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
31 October 2006
Last activity
7 November 2006
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
134
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,460
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 81–100 of 134
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Roger Zoul said:


    Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
    bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
    place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.

    As Peter is fond of pointing out, there's very little "standard" about
    placing accessories on recumbents. But...

    The RANS recumbents have water bottle bosses built into the back of the
    seat. Lightning puts the bottles under the seat (In the splash zone
    from the front wheel. Ask me how I know. Ptoo...). Easy Racer bikes
    mount them to the handlebars- 2 is stock, you can mount up to 5 with
    Terracycle dashboard bars:
    http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=erdashbar
    and there's a variety of aftermarket solutions for bladder enthusiasts:
    http://www.hostelshoppe.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?category=204500

    You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is
    'Bentrideronline:
    http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
    share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
    can get some useful information there.

    Jeff

  2. Roger Zoul said:


    Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
    bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
    place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.

    As Peter is fond of pointing out, there's very little "standard" about
    placing accessories on recumbents. But...

    The RANS recumbents have water bottle bosses built into the back of the
    seat. Lightning puts the bottles under the seat (In the splash zone
    from the front wheel. Ask me how I know. Ptoo...). Easy Racer bikes
    mount them to the handlebars- 2 is stock, you can mount up to 5 with
    Terracycle dashboard bars:
    http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=erdashbar
    and there's a variety of aftermarket solutions for bladder enthusiasts:
    http://www.hostelshoppe.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?category=204500

    You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is
    'Bentrideronline:
    http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
    share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
    can get some useful information there.

    Jeff

  3. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is


    'Bentrideronline:
    http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
    share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
    can get some useful information there<<

    Thanks for posting that link. That's exactly the info source I was looking
    for before Mr. Sherman threw a rod and seized when I asked if there was an
    NG for recumbents.

    Thanks again,

    jj1075

  4. Well said Jobst

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Ted who? said:
    Quoted message said:

    Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.

    Quoted message said:

    Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
    roads?

    Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
    facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
    government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
    such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.

    Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.

    We are living Orwell's 1984.

    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    Jobst Brandt

  5. jj1075 said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is


    'Bentrideronline:
    http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
    share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
    can get some useful information there<<

    Thanks for posting that link. That's exactly the info source I was looking
    for before Mr. Sherman threw a rod and seized when I asked if there was an
    NG for recumbents.

    It was Jobst Brandt and Peter Chisholm who freaked out first over a
    single mention of recumbents in a thread that discussed comfort of
    upright saddles. Then the "me too" crowd jumped in. In this
    context, the question could well be mistakenly viewed as saying "get
    the hell off rec.bicycles.tech"

    Bentrideronline (BROL) is NOT a Usenet newsgroup, but a moderated web
    forum.

    There used to be a recumbent newsgroup, but it is inactive for the most
    part except for the ranting of one troll.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
    Post Free or Die!

  6. Roger Zoul said:

    Johnny Sunset wrote:
    :: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::: [email hidden] wrote:
    ::::: ...
    ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
    ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
    ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
    ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
    ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
    :::::
    :::
    ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
    ::
    :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
    :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
    :: an upright bicycle.

    I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
    that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
    desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
    either of them can't serve my needs.

    Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    purpose.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not sure why people choose to draw
    this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
    advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
    the road as opposed to another car!...

    Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    purpose.

    Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

  7. Mr. Peter Chisholm said:
    Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:
    Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm said:

    Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
    > Roger Zoul wrote:
    > > [email hidden] wrote:
    > > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
    > > :: logistical vehicles.
    > > ::
    > > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
    > > ::
    > > :: Jobst Brandt
    > >
    > > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
    > > Please explain.
    >
    > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
    > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
    > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
    > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
    >
    > I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
    > you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
    >
    > [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
    > [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
    > [3] Hey, I resemble that remark.

    hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
    me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
    cranky.

    Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
    appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

    Since I continue to answer you, why I just don't know, I guess I am
    'dealing with it'. Are you directing me to moderate my view of you,
    not be cranky?

    What Mr. Chisholm thinks of me is of no concern.

    Quoted message said:

    Nope, not today, not tomorrow. As you mentioned about
    yourself, you like to argue, so do I with some people. If I get cranky
    with you, well....deal with it.

    [Yawn]

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

  8. Frank Krygowski said:
    Johnny Sunset said:
    Frank Krygowski said:

    ...
    Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
    people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
    specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
    think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
    more conventional bike.

    Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
    offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
    month?

    Nope. Not me.

    Heck, if I want to take offense, there are lots richer opportunities!

    One wonders why certain upright riders are so upset at the mere mention
    of recumbent bicycles? Despite the whining about "recumbent
    evangelism", it can not be that much of a problem due to the relatively
    small numbers of recumbent riders.

    I should get some decals made up that say "Please DO NOT ask me about
    my bike" in case I ever do any type of invitational ride again. (Not to
    worry, I will not repeat my past sin of showing up to any type of ride
    on a recumbent where riding occurs as a group).

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

  9. Michael Press said:

    In article
    <[email hidden]>
    ,
    "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"

    Quoted message said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > Peter Chisholm wrote:
    > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
    > > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
    > > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
    > > > > logistical vehicles.
    > > >
    > > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
    > > >
    > > > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
    > >
    > > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
    > > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
    > > hate anything.....or maybe he does..
    >
    > Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
    > to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
    > in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
    > cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?

    I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
    recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
    good answer to their question.

    But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
    problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!

    Not what is claimed, and you know it.

    I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
    replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT bicycle.

    But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
    recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Johnny Sunset said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
    problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!

    Not what is claimed, and you know it.

    I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
    replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT

    UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
    recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
    recumbents.

    Quoted message said:

    But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
    recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.

    Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.

    I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride.

    And the Electra Townie is the work of Stan :-) :- ) :-) <r,d & h>

    cbeers,
    Tom

    --
    -- Nothing is safe from me.
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

  11. Johnny Sunset wrote:
    :: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
    ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
    :::::::: ...
    :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
    :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
    :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
    :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
    :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
    ::::::::
    ::::::
    :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
    :::::: conventional?
    :::::
    ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
    ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
    ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
    :::
    ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
    ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
    ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
    ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
    ::: serve my needs.
    ::
    :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    :: purpose.
    ::
    ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
    ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
    ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
    ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
    ::
    :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    :: purpose.
    ::
    :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

    Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
    division. The only reason I posted
    here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
    be a troll playhouse.

    This is very disappointing.

  12. Tom Keats said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Johnny Sunset said:
    Quoted message said:

    > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
    > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!

    Not what is claimed, and you know it.

    I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
    replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT

    UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
    recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
    recumbents.

    Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
    or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
    they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
    posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.

    What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
    positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
    negative misinformation presented as fact.

    One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
    based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
    impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
    without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
    recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.

    Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.

    Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
    saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.

    Quoted message said:

    I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....

    I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
    bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
    citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
    on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.

    [1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
    way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
    fit in a paceline well.
    [2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
    Post Free or Die!

  13. Roger Zoul said:

    Johnny Sunset wrote:
    :: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
    ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    :::::: [email hidden] wrote:
    :::::::: ...
    :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
    :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
    :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
    :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
    :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
    ::::::::
    ::::::
    :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
    :::::: conventional?
    :::::
    ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
    ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
    ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
    :::
    ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
    ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
    ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
    ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
    ::: serve my needs.
    ::
    :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    :: purpose.
    ::
    ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
    ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
    ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
    ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
    ::
    :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
    :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
    :: purpose.
    ::
    :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

    Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
    division.

    The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
    have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
    they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
    group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
    rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
    bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
    the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.

    Quoted message said:

    The only reason I posted
    here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
    be a troll playhouse.

    Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
    what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
    willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.

    Quoted message said:

    This is very disappointing.

    Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
    posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
    the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
    would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.

    [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
    consists of a bicycle.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
    Post Free or Die!

  14. Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:
    G.T. said:
    Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

    Roger Zoul wrote:
    > [email hidden] wrote:
    > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
    > :: logistical vehicles.
    > ::
    > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
    > ::
    > :: Jobst Brandt
    >
    > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
    > Please explain.

    Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
    comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
    shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
    "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

    It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

    I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
    rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

    Does everyone have an interest in questions on how to make Campagnolo
    brifters work with Shimano cassettes, folding upright bicycles,
    mountain bikes, loaded touring, cycle cross, fixed-gear, single-speed,
    etc? Obviously not, yet do they have fits when these topics are
    mentioned? Why the double standard?

    --
    Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

    C'mon Johnny, mention them all you want, I don't care, there are no
    rules on NG. It's fun to sometimes tilt with you, and you are one who
    'seems' to get so tied in a knot about this discussion of another form
    of 'toy'.

  15. Johnny Sunset wrote:
    :: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
    ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    :::::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
    :::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
    ::::::::::: ...
    ::::::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
    ::::::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
    ::::::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike
    ::::::::::: them at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists
    ::::::::::: will always be better served with a more conventional bike.
    :::::::::::
    :::::::::
    ::::::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
    ::::::::: conventional?
    ::::::::
    :::::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle
    :::::::: in a positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real
    :::::::: life who rides an upright bicycle.
    ::::::
    :::::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
    :::::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
    :::::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
    :::::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
    :::::: serve my needs.
    :::::
    ::::: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider
    ::::: recumbents bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles
    ::::: can serve ANY purpose.
    :::::
    :::::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
    :::::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
    :::::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind
    :::::: of functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
    :::::
    ::::: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider
    ::::: recumbents bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles
    ::::: can serve ANY purpose.
    :::::
    ::::: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE
    ::::: TOLERATED!
    :::
    ::: Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of
    ::: such a division.
    ::
    :: The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people
    :: who have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so
    :: maybe they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper
    :: discussion on the group. However, I still have yet to see where in
    :: the charter for rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how
    :: they are not bicycles within the accepted usage of the English
    :: language [1]. 99% of the bicycle related posting is not good enough
    :: for them, apparently.

    I'm with you. "Tech" is tech. Upright or not. I think I'll start posting
    there too.

    ::
    ::: The only reason I posted
    ::: here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group
    ::: seems to be a troll playhouse.
    ::
    :: Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
    :: what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
    :: willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.

    Well, I see almost no useful discussion in that group. Lately, just been the
    two of us AFAIK.

    ::
    ::: This is very disappointing.
    ::
    :: Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
    :: posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is
    :: if the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
    :: would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.

    I agree 100%. I don't mind starting/being in a pissing match when a
    principle is involved.

    ::
    :: [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
    :: consists of a bicycle.

    Of course not. But, as you know, if the discussion is in the *.racing
    group, it ought to involve racing and recumbents, if that's the case.

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Johnny Sunset said:


    Tom Keats said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Johnny Sunset said:

    > > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
    > > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
    >
    > Not what is claimed, and you know it.

    I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
    replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT

    UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
    recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
    recumbents.

    Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
    or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
    they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
    posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.

    What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
    positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
    negative misinformation presented as fact.

    One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
    based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
    impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
    without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
    recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.

    Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.

    Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
    saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.

    Quoted message said:

    I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....

    I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
    bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
    citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
    on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.

    [1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
    way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
    fit in a paceline well.
    [2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
    Post Free or Die!

    Gee whiz, Tom.

    Your indignant attitute is sure showing!

    Actually, so is mine.

    So let's share a bottle, and decide that folks who don't
    know any better should fsck the heck off.

    Of course that would alienate us from Society,
    but ... screw Society, right? We can march off
    independently to the beats of our own drummers &
    pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
    ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,

    Anyways, I appreciate your presence here in r.b.m
    'cuz you know stuff to impart.

    Blessings upon you for that. You're a good guy,

    But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
    despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
    row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.

    cheers,
    Tom

    --
    -- Nothing is safe from me.
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

  17. In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Tom Keats) said:

    But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
    despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
    row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.

    And folks whom we might think we're "above" or
    "better than" can give us insights too.

    Ain't life beautiful? And ain't people remarkable?

    cheers,
    Tom

    --
    -- Nothing is safe from me.
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

  18. On 5 Nov 2006 05:14:11 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
    or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
    they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
    posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.

    How about also consider the number of upright riders and the number of
    recumbent riders. It seems that any given recumbent rider is more
    likely to be a loud evangelist for his/her particular favorite type of
    bike.
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  19. Roger Zoul said:

    ...
    Today, I rode the Stratus XP XL - one in the size I'm going to buy (they
    only had the standard size before). This one is actually for another
    customer who had given his permission for me to ride it. He had it outfitted
    with Velocity rims, fat 1.5-inch tires, and had a 24-tooth small ring on
    front! I didn't really have a hill handy at the LBS that would need a small
    ring like that, but he lives in Charlotte, NC and there must be plenty of
    hills around there as here (Greenville, SC). The fats gave the rig a very
    different feel (it felt edgier if that makes any sense) from the 26s on the
    standard, but having the extra room seemed to be a good thing for me since
    the seat didn't have to extend all the way back. Sadly, I've already fallen
    in love with this bike. They are saying they could have one for me in by
    next week!

    One wonders if it was the fat tires that made the Stratus XP [1] feel
    "edgier", as the change in steering geometry is not that great. The
    setup of the handlebars and the amount of "tiller" will generally have
    a more dramatic effect, and RANS does offer a range of risers and
    handlebars to this effect [2].

    Quoted message said:

    I also rode a Formula V2. This one is similar to the SXP but the BB is much
    higher. Unfortunately, the model they had in stock is standard size, not XL,
    and with the higher BB, I felt very cramped on it. I did ride it, though,
    enough to get a feel for it. Climbing on it seems to use more of the glutes
    than the XP does. I have to admit that I felt was using more leg muscles on
    both of these than on my upright while climbing. I have big legs and I bet
    they'd get a serious workout on a serious hill (or, on many serious hills as
    we tend to have here) Also, the FV2 felt a bit twitcher than the SXP in both
    the standard and XL size. I felt a lot more comfortable on the standard size
    SXP than on the standard size FV2. Finally, my right knee started hurting
    after riding the FV2. I rode the SXP standard last weekend for a good while
    with no knee discomfort - same for the SXP XL, which I rode yesterday before
    riding the FV2 Standard.

    Did you have the bikes set up so the angle formed by lines from the BB
    to the seat and the seat base to the seat back were identical? The
    effect on pedaling going from a relatively open angle to a closed on is
    similar to changing position from the "flats" to the "drops" on an
    upright road bike.

    Quoted message said:

    One thing I did notice....I could not hug the edge of the road on either of
    these bikes, especially while climbing. I needed a much greater margin from
    the edge than I do on my upright. Perhaps this is an experience (time in the
    saddle?). Also, the FV2 had a fairing (not clear plastic) on it initially.
    It seems to block the view of the road based on how the seat was inclined. I
    definitely would NOT like have like a 20-foot blind spot in front of my
    while riding.

    Simple geometry says that the longer the wheelbase, the more the front
    wheel will have to move laterally to bring the combined rider/bicycle
    CG to the balance point. In addition, you are likely not used to the
    greater tiller and lower control forces compared to an upright.

    Quoted message said:

    So, where I stand now....I can probably get a SXP XL next week (they would
    be rushing this for me). But they also have a FV2 XL coming in next week
    already! The FV2 is about $300 less than the SXP. The FV2 has disc brakes,
    but I can add those to the SXP for about $100. Would disc brakes be
    something I might want - at 225 lbs?

    All the same arguments for rim versus disc brakes apply to both
    uprights and recumbents, so there is no need to re-hash them here.
    However, a LWB recumbent has considerably more weight on the rear wheel
    than an upright, so it can contribute more to braking. The brake cable
    run to the rear is also long and convoluted, so hydraulic discs would
    likely provide better braking modulation.

    If rim overheating and the subsequent risk of tire blow off will be of
    concern, it should be remembered that with a lower frontal area, less
    energy will be dissipated through aerodynamic drag.

    Quoted message said:

    Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
    bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
    place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.

    As Jeff Wills mentioned, look on the back side of the seat frame rails.
    Water bottles in these locations are not hard to get to (easier than
    one mounted on the seat tube of an upright in my experience). The
    commonly used seatback bags also have space for a hydration bladder.

    [1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/SXP07.htm>.
    [2] <http://www.shoprans.com/products.asp?cat=16>.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

  20. Tom Keats said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Johnny Sunset said:


    Tom Keats said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "Johnny Sunset" <[email hidden]> writes:

    >> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
    >> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
    >>
    >> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
    >
    > I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
    > replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT

    UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
    recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
    recumbents.

    Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
    or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
    they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
    posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.

    What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
    positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
    negative misinformation presented as fact.

    One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
    based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
    impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
    without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.

    Quoted message said:

    > But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
    > recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.

    Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.

    Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
    saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.

    Quoted message said:

    I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....

    I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
    bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
    citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
    on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.

    [1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
    way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
    fit in a paceline well.
    [2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.

    --
    Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
    Post Free or Die!

    Gee whiz, Tom.

    Your indignant attitute is sure showing!

    Visualize bighorn sheep butting heads. 😉

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, so is mine.

    So let's share a bottle, and decide that folks who don't
    know any better should fsck the heck off.

    Of course that would alienate us from Society,
    but ... screw Society, right? We can march off
    independently to the beats of our own drummers &
    pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
    ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,

    I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
    the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".

    Quoted message said:

    Anyways, I appreciate your presence here in r.b.m
    'cuz you know stuff to impart.

    Blessings upon you for that. You're a good guy,

    Thank you.

    Quoted message said:

    But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
    despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
    row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.

    I think being on the downhill side of civilization is making everyone
    cranky, whether or not they realize it.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.