frkrygow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Frank Krygowski 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 very experience upright cyclist is generally the one with the most
ingrained habits and the least able to adapt to something different.
>>> 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.
Most re***bent bicycles AND trikes can do a U-turn in a normal 2-lane
road. Many delta trikes can almost rotate in place.
>> 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!
This is not at all typical of current production tadpole trikes.
>> 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.
Very reclined is having the seat back at 25° or less from the
horizontal. A high bottom bracket is one that is more than 25 cm above
the seat height.
>> 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.
Proper mounting/dismounting technique can be learned.
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
I have ridden a lowracer (as have several others) in urban Chicago
traffic without problems.
>>> 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?"
Why are you using what appears to be a one-off custom as representative
of the category?
>> 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.
Most production tadpole trikes will fit inside a subcompact hatchback
with the rear seat folded down.
>>> 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??
Greater emphasis should have been made in the original post by Frank
that this trike was not a current production trike (or similar), but an
unidentified low volume production (or unique) 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.
Judging re***bents by what was available in the early 1980's is like
judging automobiles by the Ford Model A.
> 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.
The Trek was an odd-ball design, that lost its champion within the
company prior to going into production. Almost no one on the Trek
marketing staff or individual Trek dealers (Mike J. excepted?) wanted
anything to do with it.
The Cannondale was not a bad design, but was priced about one-third more
than the comparable HP Velotechnik Spirit, so it was not competitive in
the market. I doubt than many Cannondale dealers wanted to or knew how
to sell it either.
> 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.
Upright riders need to consider that they are a self-selected group of
people that do not have comfort problems with the upright design, and
there is an under served market that could be filled by crank-forward
uprights and re***bents that would get more cyclists on the road. Is
more cyclists a bad thing, even if the are riding funny bikes?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
