Why Do People Fall Down?

DennisTheBald said:

They are shills for the auto/oil complex... they are attempting to
create the impression that bicycling is inherently dangerous. It's a
capitalist plot designed to hide the morbidly dangerous nature of
their products through misdirection and out and out lies.

LOL!! Guerilla marketing for Exxon!

Edward Dolan said:

The reason people fall is because being on only 2 wheels is inherently
unstable.

So, if you had wheels strapped on your feet you would tip over too?
You must be dumber than a sk8er, or at least clutzier. Either way,
you're unstable and should be committed.

http://www.bikeroute.com/BentImagesFolder/BlogPhotos/UnwheeldyHarvestLg.jpg

Bill Sornson said:

Prisoner at War said:

On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...except by many of those who've used it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "sentence finisher" S.

Quoted message said:

Otherwise known as a placebo effect??

POTM!

The over-snipping here (deleting all content, not just context) is quite
funny. First Tom took away the /context/ of inexperienced riders falling
over suddenly and without warning; then you take away the /content/
completely!

Good stuff... BS

As to why people fall down:

One fine afternoon, I was riding along the right side of the road on
the Gettysburg College campus, with the curb on the right. There's a
steep incline for about 10 seconds, and I stood up in the pedals so I
could just power up through it. Suddenly, a girl in the French class
I was avoiding walked out of a classroom, and waved at me.
Unthinkingly, I took my hand off the bars, to wave (being the suave,
debonair gentleman I am). Sadly, when standing in the pedals, a lot
of your force is resisted by your arms on the bars. With one hand
off, I imbalanced myself, swinging the bike directly into the curb,
and myself over the bars. Que trauma.

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

Prisoner at War said:

There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.

Quoted message said:

But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
turns, I guess!)...so what?

Significant fun factor and very different riding experience. Going up steep
hills has some advantages too. Pain factor is an issue on long rides
compared to other types of bikes (perhaps I should say the lack of pain).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
(lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one"😉...or really
not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
how often does that happen with regular bikes?

Quoted message said:

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
to have a free trike! 🙂

Quoted message said:

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

These other people cycle a lot I take it?

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around. Those
who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise.

That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever. The
guy was very slender so that didn't surprise me too much. The lady was
shorter, not fat by many means but not very slender either. I was impressed
at how effortless it was for her to get up. She did have to think about it,
though. But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
IMO, cycling of any kind is inconvenient on MUPs. Trikes would have an
advantage there as they can stop on a dime which is problematic at best on
two wheels of any type. The trikes I have ridden do u-turns on a dime, too,
much better than any other bike I've tried.

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk, and there are racks for them. I have
a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
way.

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me. I
have an upright, a long-wheel base bent and probably will have a trike soon.
I enjoy all of them for the different experiences they offer. Each one has
it's own set of pros/cons. I know one fellow (not personally, from afar) who
commutes to work on this trike. No flags either. I think this is especially
interesting as he does his in a college town on a college campus, with lots
of students flying around in cars.

Quoted message said:

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
though, I expect more from you! 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...'bent bikes are already safe enough.

And so are upright bikes.

Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!

I'm thinking that safety is probably not the thought that is foremost
in the mind of one who is riding under the gates at a railroad
crossing.

Prisoner at War said:

Tom Sherman said:

More details - what exactly is it?

Well, maybe since we're talking "general characteristics" here, make
and model isn't so critical....

Quoted message said:

Seems, as opposed to actual practice? Plenty of people ride low seat
trikes and lowracer recumbents on the road. The very oddity of it appear
to make drivers give one more room when passing.

That's if they see them! On my 'bent, I deliberately take up another
foot of space in order to try to better ensure that people have more
of a chance of noticing me. I won't even imagine what strategies
might be involved with a trike!

Build an symmetric airfoil shaped spar out of light composite, mount
LEDs to the trailing edge, and mount it vertically on the trike if you
are worried. This arrangement will have much less drag than a round flag
pole and waving flag.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have never found this to be an issue.

They certainly have different "road physics" and likely require more
"finessing."

Quoted message said:

Proper technique is needed here - if you put your feet in the right
place it is easy, but the wrong place makes it difficult.

Getting on a DF upright is not easy for some people either.

With bikes, getting on means balance more than anything else. With a
trike, I think it's having to stoop so low at that angle, and allow
yourself to fall back. I don't think it would be a big deal for me,
though I can imagine it being a bit more of a fuss for others.

Those who have problems getting on a trike may also have problems with a
DF upright. They may need a step-through or crank-forward upright or a
delta trike with a relatively high seat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, the "seems" risky. As for width, most trikes are no wider than
the bars on the average ATB - are those too wide for the MUP?

MUP?

Multi-use path. The thing occupied by pedestrians, dog walkers, inline
skaters and the occasional cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or a Honda Civic (works for my trike).

Sucks when a car is a necessary accessory to the trike, though!

Quoted message said:

Indeed. Preconceived notions are hard to overcome.

I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
given what very little I think I might know about them.

We need more attitudes like this.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

32GO aka Wayne Leggett said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Perhaps the [tadpole trike] hanging in my garage isn't
well designed... but the original owner rode it on only
a few occasions before giving it up for his normal bike.
The next owner took only a couple test rides... The guy
he gave it to passed it on to me. My wife, a couple
friends, and I each took our turns at test rides. For all
of us, it failed the test.

I was reminded of a similar incident about 25 years ago,
when someone I knew bent the stays on a Schwinn Varsity to
allow mounting of a BMX cruiser tire, then added a cheap
cruiser fork, wider rims and KMart tires. In short order,
he noted that compared to his road bike the whole concept
of mountain bikes (MTBs) was a hopelessly flawed design,
a dead end side trip in cycle development, a short-lived
passing fad. The rest is history...

The moral of this short tale may be something like: you
get what you pay for, or quality of design and construction
are fairly critical elements for any type of cycle.

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration [of a tadpole trike?] seems
good only for "toy" use... you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme
yoga exercise... its low visibility seems risky for the
roads, and the extra width makes it inconvenient on MUPs
[mysterious unexplained phenonema? Mission to Unreached
Peoples? Multiple-Use Paths?] And of course, you'd better
have a pickup truck to take it anywhere. It's interesting
as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue, from
what I can tell. So I suppose the whole crew of us are
lost causes!

Most modern trikes will U-turn within a width of 15' or
less. Mounting and dismounting aren't real challenging
for anyone who has mastered a patio or poolside lounge.
Low visibility is only a valid concern for cross traffic
when surrounded by high profile auto traffic; most autos
overtaking a trike on narrow roads allow a much wider
clearance than they would for bicycles. Extra width is
only an issue for ground tracks - e.g., where a single-
track bike might skim the pavement edge, allowing it to
move an extra foot or so out of the path of an overtaking
vehicle than a typical trike. Two tadpoles travel quite
nicely inside a modern minivan or station wagon, sitting
simply and politely on their wheels, rather than being
piled in on their sides with pedals and chains ruining
carpets, or bars, levers and cables tangling during
loading and unloading. Trikes ride nicely on their own
wheels on top of autos with standard roof racks, or on
special purpose hitch mounted racks.

Among the virtues of a tadpole trike I'd list: optimal
low-speed stability, outstanding comfort, incomparable
braking performance, hill climbing capability for less
athletic riders, lack of susceptibility to headwinds,
and its amazing adaptability for carrying heavy loads
or pulling a trailer. It is almost surely the best
choice for a serious cyclist looking for relief from
back, neck, wrist or 'seat' discomfort, or for those
folks struggling with balance issues. Clicking out of
pedals when stopping on a trike is a casual non-traumatic
event, requiring no sense of timing or coordination. You
can park one anywhere you can ride it, with nothing to
lean on and no klugey kickstands.

However, the outstanding virtue of a tadpole, based on
feedback I've heard from the few hundred folks I've seen
try them, whether they bought one or not, is: sheer,
simple FUN! Basically, I guess I'd have to agree that
anyone who has ridden a quality, modern tadpole but
doesn't get that is - well, pretty much a lost cause.

Tadpoles are obviously and clearly not the ideal choice
for every cyclist. Road bikes are likely to be the
vehicle of choice for folks who like to ride very fast
in tight groups, or to whom sheer speed is the primary
criterion for a ride. MTBs work much better for rough dirt
trails. Probably most importantly, this year at least
still, moderate quality road and mountain bikes are much
less expensive than roughly equivalent tadpole trikes.

Finally... as Tom noted:

Quoted message said:

Almost all recumbent riders started out on uprights. The
reverse case would be rare indeed.

At times I sometimes idly speculate on this interesting
what-if: If things had evolved so that most four-year-olds
graduated directly to modern adult recumbent sports
touring tadpoles rather than two-wheelers, what would be
the typical reaction of someone initially introduced to a
contemporary road bike design when he was forty years old?
Would most enjoy - maybe even survive - their first panic
experience with hard braking?

The only thing I would take issue with in the above is cost. A trike
will have a third wheel, longer chain and a complex seat. Even if
produced by the tens of thousands in a Democratic China (Taiwan)
automated factory, a tadpole would cost a couple of hundred dollars more
than a comparable quality upright.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Dennis The Bald said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ...'bent bikes are already safe enough.
And so are upright bikes.

Not when you are trying to ride under the gates at railroad crossings!

I'm thinking that safety is probably not the thought that is foremost
in the mind of one who is riding under the gates at a railroad
crossing.

It is fun to cross after the train goes by, while everyone else is
waiting for the gate to rise.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Roger Zoul said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

Quoted message said:

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
(lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one"😉...or really
not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
how often does that happen with regular bikes?

The original owner was absolutely not the kind of guy to worry about
being "the only one." In fact, I think he enjoyed the attention. And
as far as "committed to cycling," we're talking about a very
experienced long-distance tourist. For example, he rode the entire Al-
Can highway to Alaska, solo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
to have a free trike! 🙂

Nice try! There are two other worthy causes in line ahead of you,
though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

These other people cycle a lot I take it?

Yes. My wife and I (and our daughter) have toured extensively,
including a self-contained, self-led coast to coast. One of the
friends is our club's mileage leader. The other has done at least one
double century, and does a lot of utility riding as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.

Well, your centuries are different from mine. I do like to stop (or
go back) to smell the flowers, observe a soaring hawk, help with a
repair, etc etc.

Quoted message said:

And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around.

Yes, but on this trike, you absolutely could not!

Quoted message said:

Those
who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?

There's nothing at all wrong with it, if that's what you like. My
point isn't that nobody would ever like this trike. My point is that
nobody who's ridden it liked it enough to want to keep riding it.
Different strokes and all that, yes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise.

That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever.

And it probably depends on the trike! With this one, your butt is
about 6" off the ground, and your feet are much higher. You are
_very_ reclined. That's why I describe it as a low-racer - although
it predates that term.

Quoted message said:

But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.

Sorry, but it's not even close. This thing requires a sort of extreme
abdominal "crunch," while searching for something to hold onto. When
my wife stalled at that intersection, it took her quite a while to
wiggle out of it. That was an embarrassment for her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
your opinion from not really riding one, I think.

I have ridden quite a few recumbents. (More on that later.) I've
ridden this trike. I'm speaking from my experience. I'd not be
willing to take this out in the kind of heavy traffic I negotiate on
my other bikes.

When I ride, I want to be able to see what's happening around me.
With this, I'd be literally looking at adjacent hubcaps. And I can't
imagine I'd be conspicuous to, say, oncoming left-turn motorists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk,...

Are we talking about "some trikes," or "most trikes," or "this
trike?"

Quoted message said:

I have
a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
way.

My bikes almost always ride inside my hatchback, if I need to haul
them. But I'm sure none of my three bike racks could haul this
trike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me.

What an odd conclusion! I'm describing my personal experiences with
this machine, and the experiences of good friends and family. We all
agreed that the trike isn't worth riding much. Is there _no_
possibility that we are correct??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
though, I expect more from you! 🙂

Again, you need to question who is judging from experience and who is
judging based on pre-conceived notions. Examine your conscience!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let me tell you a bit more about me and recumbents in general.

I first heard of these things in about 1973, in an article in a
paperback book, _The Best of Bicycling_. I was immediately
fascinated. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I was very interested in
vehicle aerodynamics ever since high school. Recumbents seemed like a
great idea - but I wasn't able to afford one.

Still, I read all I could. I joined the IHPVA. I subscribed to Human
Power. I rode my first recumbent, the Avatar 2000, in 1980, I think.
That was the beginning of my doubts, since I found the handling a bit
weird, and realized how ungainly long it was.

A few years later, four of the most active members of our bike club
either bought or built recumbents. I rode with them on many rides,
and tested their bikes. I watched them coast away on the downhills...
and watched everyone pass them on the uphills. And I noted that,
within three or four years, they all retired the recumbents for almost
all rides, preferring their uprights. It was clear the machines
weren't magic carpets.

As an engineer, I still find the designs interesting, partly because
they are still evolving... or, perhaps, looking for a configuration
that really works. I worked for a while on designing my own. I test-
rode many more - long WB, short WB, taller ones, lower ones, different
wheel sizes. I've ridden with - and waited for - friends who still
own them and like them. I've talked to recumbent riders I've met on
country roads. I even had a couple friends who won an IHPVA award
with one, in the Practical Vehicle competition.

I eventually realized that, interested though I am, I don't want one.
For me, a recumbent's advantages aren't likely to offset its
disadvantages. When I splurged on a "different" bike, I got a Bike
Friday instead, and it's already proven far, far more valuable than
any recumbent would have.

And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its recumbent version.
Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.

Recumbent fans need to understand that not everyone likes their choice
of machine - and in my case, at least, it's certainly not prejudice!
If anything, I was prejudiced in favor of them!

It was mostly the riding that changed my mind.

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Sherman said:

Quoted message said:

I have an open mind about trikes. I'm just wondering aloud here, even
given what very little I think I might know about them.

We need more attitudes like this.

I've mixed feeling about bent trikes.

I dread the day I may be confined to one but am nevertheless thankful
they exist in case that day does dawn.

That it's the only configuration available for those who must crank
with their arms increases their worth, IMO.
--
zk

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

Quoted message said:

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
(lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one"😉...or really
not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that
someone
would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
how often does that happen with regular bikes?

The original owner was absolutely not the kind of guy to worry about
being "the only one." In fact, I think he enjoyed the attention. And
as far as "committed to cycling," we're talking about a very
experienced long-distance tourist. For example, he rode the entire Al-
Can highway to Alaska, solo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd
love
to have a free trike! 🙂

Nice try! There are two other worthy causes in line ahead of you,
though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

These other people cycle a lot I take it?

Yes. My wife and I (and our daughter) have toured extensively,
including a self-contained, self-led coast to coast. One of the
friends is our club's mileage leader. The other has done at least one
double century, and does a lot of utility riding as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a
U-turn.

Well, your centuries are different from mine. I do like to stop (or
go back) to smell the flowers, observe a soaring hawk, help with a
repair, etc etc.

Quoted message said:

And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around.

Yes, but on this trike, you absolutely could not!

Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain type of
trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat angle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those
who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?

There's nothing at all wrong with it, if that's what you like. My
point isn't that nobody would ever like this trike. My point is that
nobody who's ridden it liked it enough to want to keep riding it.
Different strokes and all that, yes?

Well, I do see your point. Just like those low-racer recumbent bikes aren't
for me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise.

That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two
total
noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever.

And it probably depends on the trike! With this one, your butt is
about 6" off the ground, and your feet are much higher. You are
_very_ reclined. That's why I describe it as a low-racer - although
it predates that term.

I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder to ride.
Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike - made for going
fast. How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.

Sorry, but it's not even close. This thing requires a sort of extreme
abdominal "crunch," while searching for something to hold onto. When
my wife stalled at that intersection, it took her quite a while to
wiggle out of it. That was an embarrassment for her.

Ok...I get that. The shape (degree of incline) of the trike itself could be
contributing to the issue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really
just
your opinion from not really riding one, I think.

I have ridden quite a few recumbents. (More on that later.) I've
ridden this trike. I'm speaking from my experience. I'd not be
willing to take this out in the kind of heavy traffic I negotiate on
my other bikes.

Yeah, I can see that...especially given your other comments.

Quoted message said:

When I ride, I want to be able to see what's happening around me.
With this, I'd be literally looking at adjacent hubcaps. And I can't
imagine I'd be conspicuous to, say, oncoming left-turn motorists.

It sounds as if it lower than a low-racer recumbent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk,...

Are we talking about "some trikes," or "most trikes," or "this
trike?"

I was talking about trikes in general...you're talking about "that trike".
🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have
a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any
other
way.

My bikes almost always ride inside my hatchback, if I need to haul
them. But I'm sure none of my three bike racks could haul this
trike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me.

What an odd conclusion! I'm describing my personal experiences with
this machine, and the experiences of good friends and family. We all
agreed that the trike isn't worth riding much. Is there _no_
possibility that we are correct??

No, I think you very well may be correct. But I didn't get from your
comments that this trike was a very low trike. I thought you were talking
about trikes - many of which are naturally low - and low-racer recumbents,
as opposed to a low-racer configuration of trike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived
notions.
These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
though, I expect more from you! 🙂

Again, you need to question who is judging from experience and who is
judging based on pre-conceived notions. Examine your conscience!

🙂

Quoted message said:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let me tell you a bit more about me and recumbents in general.

I first heard of these things in about 1973, in an article in a
paperback book, _The Best of Bicycling_. I was immediately
fascinated. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I was very interested in
vehicle aerodynamics ever since high school. Recumbents seemed like a
great idea - but I wasn't able to afford one.

Still, I read all I could. I joined the IHPVA. I subscribed to Human
Power. I rode my first recumbent, the Avatar 2000, in 1980, I think.
That was the beginning of my doubts, since I found the handling a bit
weird, and realized how ungainly long it was.

A few years later, four of the most active members of our bike club
either bought or built recumbents. I rode with them on many rides,
and tested their bikes. I watched them coast away on the downhills...
and watched everyone pass them on the uphills. And I noted that,
within three or four years, they all retired the recumbents for almost
all rides, preferring their uprights. It was clear the machines
weren't magic carpets.

As an engineer, I still find the designs interesting, partly because
they are still evolving... or, perhaps, looking for a configuration
that really works. I worked for a while on designing my own. I test-
rode many more - long WB, short WB, taller ones, lower ones, different
wheel sizes. I've ridden with - and waited for - friends who still
own them and like them. I've talked to recumbent riders I've met on
country roads. I even had a couple friends who won an IHPVA award
with one, in the Practical Vehicle competition.

I eventually realized that, interested though I am, I don't want one.
For me, a recumbent's advantages aren't likely to offset its
disadvantages. When I splurged on a "different" bike, I got a Bike
Friday instead, and it's already proven far, far more valuable than
any recumbent would have.

And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its recumbent version.
Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.

Recumbent fans need to understand that not everyone likes their choice
of machine - and in my case, at least, it's certainly not prejudice!
If anything, I was prejudiced in favor of them!

It was mostly the riding that changed my mind.

So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very low trike)
in the last 25 years?
Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been passed by
some that just seem to fly.....

Roger Zoul said:

Quoted message said:

Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain type of
trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat angle.

....

Quoted message said:

I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder to ride.
Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike - made for going
fast.

Definitely.

Quoted message said:

How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.

Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/

The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
owner is deceased.

Quoted message said:

So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very low trike)
in the last 25 years?
Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been passed by
some that just seem to fly.....

I think the last time I did a fairly extended test ride was about five
(?) years ago. I was in Albuquerque for a conference. There is (or
was) a shop there that specialized in recumbents. They let me take
about three different models out and ride them around the city. At
this point, I don't remember the details of those bikes, except that
they were all new (i.e. none were archaic designs), and they were
different from each other.

And it's not that they were bad rides, IIRC. It's just that I prefer
an upright bike.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

... I do know that some moderated NGs
even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
googlegroups archives.

Citation?

[email hidden] wrote:
:: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
::: angle.
:::
:: ...
:::
::: I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
::: low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder
::: to ride. Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike -
::: made for going fast.
::
:: Definitely.
::
::: How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
::
::
:: Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
::
:: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
::
:: The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
:: info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
:: owner is deceased.
::

Hard for me to tell from looking, but it just looks uncomfortable. The seat
looks like cloth hung loosely over metal at two ends. perhaps it's not
that, though. However, it doesn't appear to be as low as I thought it woud
be. With that big 700c (is that 700c?) wheel back there. But I can't
really tell how one is positioned in that thing. there a lot of bending
metal bits there too. Once you're in it and riding, how does it feel?

:::
:::
::: So, have you ridden a recumbent of any type (other than that very
::: low trike) in the last 25 years?
::: Some of the high-racer models are very light and nimble. I've been
::: passed by some that just seem to fly.....
::
:: I think the last time I did a fairly extended test ride was about
:: five (?) years ago. I was in Albuquerque for a conference. There
:: is (or was) a shop there that specialized in recumbents. They let
:: me take about three different models out and ride them around the
:: city. At this point, I don't remember the details of those bikes,
:: except that they were all new (i.e. none were archaic designs), and
:: they were different from each other.
::
:: And it's not that they were bad rides, IIRC. It's just that I prefer
:: an upright bike.

I prefer that sometimes, but the comfort of a 'bent on long rides is hard to
beat!

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

:: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
::: angle.
:::
:: ...
:::
::: I see. I thought you were talking about a low-racer recumbent, not a
::: low-racer trike. The low angle could definitely make things harder
::: to ride. Certainly, this is a more specialized version of a trike -
::: made for going fast.
::
:: Definitely.
::
::: How old is it? It must be way long, too, if you can't do a u-turn.
::
::
:: Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:
::
::http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/
::
:: The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
:: info is on it. I know it was expensive. And again, the original
:: owner is deceased.
::

Hard for me to tell from looking, but it just looks uncomfortable. The seat
looks like cloth hung loosely over metal at two ends. perhaps it's not
that, though.

That pretty well describes it. The seat - or sling, or hammock, or
whatever you'd call it - doesn't feel too bad, actually. But as with
a hammock, there's a feeling of being sunk into it, not knowing if
you'll ever get out.

Quoted message said:

However, it doesn't appear to be as low as I thought it woud
be. With that big 700c (is that 700c?) wheel back there.

Close. Originally came with 3 tubulars, but the back rim corroded and
failed in storage. I put an old 27" clincher wheel on it to enable
riding.

Quoted message said:

But I can't
really tell how one is positioned in that thing. there a lot of bending
metal bits there too. Once you're in it and riding, how does it feel?

The riding position makes me feel pretty much like a turtle on its
back. My feet are way high in front of me, so I'm kind of peering
around them at times. I can put considerable pressure on the pedals,
and that makes it scoot, but spinning seems awkward. Handling is
twitchy - one has to concentrate on not oversteering. Even riding a
straight line takes some concentration.

The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
activate the front wheels.

Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.

- Frank Krygowski

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

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

:: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
::: angle.

snip>

Quoted message said:

The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
activate the front wheels.

Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting but
very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work search
engines and I don't have time to post a link.

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

:: On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::: Ah....I didn't get the fact that you were referring to a certain
::: type of trike. It sounds like a racing model, with a very low seat
::: angle.

snip>

Quoted message said:

The most unusual feature is the steering linkage. I've never seen
anything like it. The two joysticks actually act on the _rear_ wheel,
banking it left or right. The intent is to prevent side loading of
the rear wheel. Other linkages go from there to the tie rods and
activate the front wheels.

Much of that is adjustable. I gave some thought to tuning out the
twitchiness, but a) I'm buried in much more important projects, and b)
I really have no desire to ride this thing very much.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting
but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
search engines and I don't have time to post a link.

Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I think
this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling feature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-72157594333112951/

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

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:56 -0000, [email hidden] wrote of his
recumbent trike:

Quoted message said:

Here's my first attempt at using Flickr.com:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/

The trike was made sometime in the mid-1980s. Again, no manufacturer
info is on it. I know it was expensive.

/
How does one pedal in a wet-suit? I mean, it looks like this thing
is missing pontoons or a snorkel or something for the puddles.

At least the bar-cons and hub brakes give it some redeeming features.
--
zk

gotbent said:

Quoted message said:

Frank, I think you might have a MASA Slingshot. Historically interesting
but very archaic compared to a modern trike of the
ICE/Catrike/Wizwheels/Greenspeed flavors. You folks know how to work
search engines and I don't have time to post a link.

Ok, here's a link from Recumbents.com of a restored MASA Slingshot. I think
this trike was prone to rolling over. Not a very good selling feature.http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinandcharmin/272462965/in/set-721575...

Nope, that's not it. Frame design is completely different, etc, etc,
etc.

But regarding the desirability of low trikes, this is interesting from
a "MASA Slingshot For Sale or Trade" post I googled up"

"My husband, neighbor and I have been riding it and it is a blast. Why
then you ask am I willing to part with it? Because I need something
that I can ride on the road. Ground clearance on the Slingshot is just
too limited for going over railroad tracks (which I have to do all the
time)"

I, too, prefer vehicles I can ride on the road!

- Frank Krygowski

Roger Zoul said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

Prisoner at War wrote:
> There was a guy with a hand-cranked trike...I was happy to see him.
> But I don't know what the big deal with trikes is...'bent bikes are
> already safe enough. Why a trike, exactly? What real advantage does
> it offer? So you needn't worry as much about balance (except on
> turns, I guess!)...so what?

Significant fun factor and very different riding experience. Going up steep
hills has some advantages too. Pain factor is an issue on long rides
compared to other types of bikes (perhaps I should say the lack of pain).

I remember at the end of a long, hot, tiring ride being happy to sit
still on my trike, and not get up. Hard to do that on anything else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ride a well designed tadpole trike for an extended distance. You will
either get it, or you are a lost cause. 😉

Perhaps the one hanging in my garage isn't well designed... but the
original owner rode it on only a few occasions before giving it up for
his normal bike.

The next owner took only a couple test rides and stored it in his
basement.

I'd venture a guess that neither of these people really gave it a
chance....either feeling too isolated since most riders are on uprights
(lots of people just feel uncomfortable being "the only one"😉...or really
not so much into riding to begin with. It seems strange to me that someone
would really drop dime on an expensive trike and then not ride it. That
seems like someone not committed to exercise or cycling to me. Afterall,
how often does that happen with regular bikes?

Relatively unused upright bicycles do turn up from time to time for sale.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The guy he gave it to passed it on to me.

Perhaps you'll pass it on to me, since you're obviously not a fan. I'd love
to have a free trike! 🙂

Probably a few hundred dollars to ship, unless you want to drive to Ohio
to pick it up. (Been there, done that.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My wife, a couple friends, and I each took our turns at test rides.
For all of us, it failed the test.

These other people cycle a lot I take it?

Experienced upright cyclists often have so ingrained habits they do not
want to change to anything different.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The low-racer configuration seems good only for "toy" use. The
turning circle is inconveniently large (you can't do a U-turn on a 20'
road)

Toy use? I've ridden several centuries and I never needed to do a U-turn.
And if I did, I could just stop and turn the bike around 180degs. On my
'bent I can just put my foot down quickly to easily get turned around. Those
who ride "low-racers" mainly use them for riding fast and don't focus on
distance, from my observation (the two-wheel lowracer isn't my style,
though). But, I have to ask you -- what's wrong with that?

On a long-wheelbase, over-seat steering like Roger Zoul's RANS Stratus,
one can use the back of ones knees in combination with the handlebars to
pick the bicycle up and rotate in place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and getting in and out of the trike is an extreme yoga
exercise.

That's curious. I was at my local bike shop on Saturday and saw two total
noob riders get in and out of a trike with no difficulty whatsoever. The
guy was very slender so that didn't surprise me too much. The lady was
shorter, not fat by many means but not very slender either. I was impressed
at how effortless it was for her to get up. She did have to think about it,
though. But that's true on most road bikes too since the pedals/saddle
height prevents the both feet from touching the ground at the same time.

Quoted message said:

The need for three tracks through the potholes, plus it's
low visibility, seems risky for the roads, and the extra width makes
it inconvenient on MUPs.

the extra width isn't that much extra and the low visibility is really just
your opinion from not really riding one, I think.
IMO, cycling of any kind is inconvenient on MUPs. Trikes would have an
advantage there as they can stop on a dime which is problematic at best on
two wheels of any type. The trikes I have ridden do u-turns on a dime, too,
much better than any other bike I've tried.

Rear suspension helps greatly with the potholes, since it is relatively
easy to steer the front wheel around them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course, you'd better have a pickup
truck to take it anywhere.

Hmm...some trikes fold into the trunk, and there are racks for them. I have
a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider transport any other
way.

Quoted message said:

It's interesting as a design exercise. But that's its only virtue,
from what I can tell.

Your view is very limited, Frank. I'm rather disappointed in you. Bike
prejudice is what you're displaying here. It's kinda sad, if you ask me. I
have an upright, a long-wheel base bent and probably will have a trike soon.
I enjoy all of them for the different experiences they offer. Each one has
it's own set of pros/cons. I know one fellow (not personally, from afar) who
commutes to work on this trike. No flags either. I think this is especially
interesting as he does his in a college town on a college campus, with lots
of students flying around in cars.

Quoted message said:

So I suppose the whole crew of us are lost causes!

I would tend to agree, yes. It's not hard to understand, though, as we as
humans all seem to have our own biases built up from pre-conceived notions.
These notions can be very very hard for us to overcome. For some reason,
though, I expect more from you! 🙂

Agreed. Frank Krygowski aka [email hidden] is correct on other
issues such as bicycle foam hats. However, he does need (along with
several others) to fix his user name.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?