Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> The reasoning behind the short cranks is to reduce the minimum angle at
> the knee (with a fully extended leg having an angle of about 180=B0)
while=
> pedaling.
>
> Most recumbent riders can deal with a fair range of cadences [1], but
> doing the equivalent of leg presses while climbing is NOT the proper
> technique.
I believe you, but that makes me wonder about the relative scarcity of
single-speed 'bents and the relative awfulness of the few I've ever
seen (toy and rental three-wheelers). What's up with that? There's
no 'bent equivalent of a beach cruiser, when in some regards 'bents
are just the utmost expression of the beach-cruiser design ethic. Is
it an ergonomic problem, or just a quirk of the tiny specialty market
for feet-forward bikes? Why aren't there any single-speed 'bent two-
wheelers?
> >http://datribean.com/chalo/images/sidewinder1.jpg
>
> Is the sidewinder name due to the wheels not being on a single track,
> with alternate single sided mounting?
Yes. When you ride it, it feels like a bike that has been slightly
bent in a crash and wants to pull to one side. But when you ride
behind it, it's obvious that the plane of the frame is not oriented in
the direction of travel.
> The bike does look a bit too large for Mama Chicken to ride, however. ;)
I think a chicken would be better suited to a unicycle.
> [1] The upright roadies seem to be the ones who have trouble with
> varying cadences, to judge by the popularity of 11-21 and 12-23 10-speed
> cassettes these days.
They're just the cycling equivalent of young people who adopt a vegan
diet for fashion reasons. That is, they might derive tangible
benefits from it-- they probably won't-- and that's immaterial to the
reason they do it.
Chalo
|
