<frkrygow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> On Oct 29, 3:20 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <frkry...@[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!
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.
>
>> 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 re***bent bikes
aren't
for me.
>
>
>>
>> > 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 re***bent, 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.
>
>> 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.
>> > 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 re***bents. (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.
>
> 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 re***bent.
>
>> > 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".
:)
>> I have
>> a rack for my upright and my bent and wouldn't consider trans****t 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??
>
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 re***bents,
as opposed to a low-racer configuration of trike.
>> > 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 re***bents 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. Re***bents 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 re***bent, 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 re***bents. 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 re***bents 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 re***bent 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 re***bent'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 re***bent would have.
>
> And BTW, I think Green Gear has discontinued its re***bent version.
> Same for Cannondale and Trek, I understand.
>
> Re***bent 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 re***bent 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.....
|
