Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fvf0c2$d55$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
>> Back in the early days of the 20th Century re***bent revival (e.g.
>> Hypercycle, the never produced Avatar 1000,) the designers mistakenly
>> thought that some heel/wheel overlap needed to be avoided. Therefore,
the
>> boom was made very long and the rider was seated almost over the front
>> wheel. This led to too flexible booms which made climbing and
acceleration
>> poor, poor handling - especially when hitting bumps at speed , and the
>> bike rotating forward about the front wheel contact patch under hard
>> braking.
>>
>> Modern short=wheelbase re***bent sensibly trade off some heel overlap
for
>> proper weight distribution and have none of the above flaws. However,
some
>> of the "experts" tried the earlier designs 25 or 30 years ago and have
>> closed their minds to later improvements.
>
> Even so, SWB re***bents do not handle well and tend to be squirrely.
They
> are fine for around town for a few hours, but they are the pits on day
long
> rides.
My short-wheelbase re***bents (RANS Rocket, Earth Cycles Sunset
Lowracer) are easy to ride, even after I have hammered to the point of
exhaustion on a double metric century.
> Also, heel overlap is not a good idea. Sooner or later it will trip
> you up.
>
Not a big deal as long as there is nothing for the crank to hit. Crank
to wheel overlap can dump you in a hurry. Of course, that can only
happen at low speed, and a low speed fall on a re***bent is trivial
compared to doing the same on an upright.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
