On Oct 29, 3:20 pm, "Roger Zoul" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > 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?
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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> 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!
> 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?
>
> > 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
> > 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 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.
>
> > 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??
> > 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
