what are those lame ass bikes?

Howard Kveck

In article <107mjh441t9b69a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Not to mention - if you look down that list to "arms only" which I assume
> > means recumbents only partially faired, you'll note that the record for a
> > flying 200 meters is about the same as Lance's 40 mile TT times.
> >
>
> Arms only means just that: propulsion by arms only. It is a category
> intended for disabled riders.

I saw people on recumbents up in the hills where I ride three times last
year. One was a guy out near the coast, and I would have to assume he rode
up over a hill to ge there. Another time was up on Tunitas Creek Road,
which is a fairly tough climb. But as I approached, I noticed he was on the
small gear on the cluster and he wasn't always pedaling. He had some kind
of motor under the bodywork. Lame... But the last one was a woman on a
three wheeled one with hand cranks - I saw her up on the steepest part of
Page Mill Road, in a section which is about an average of 8.5%. That
impressed me.

--
tanx,
Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Benjamin Weiner

Ron <total_computer_idiot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've never seen a recumbent without its prerequisite geek attached.
> >
> > -Kenny

> Hey Kenny,

> I'll bet you work for one of those geeks. We geeks, the ones you
> probably picked on in high school, now own the buildings you see
> downtown and the businesses you buy from. People like you now clean
> our swimming pools. If you happen to work for one of the geeks who
> figured out how to how to really live well, you also clean up our used
> condoms and champagne bottles from those pools.

> Ironic that without us geeks, you wouldn't have the computers,
> internet or software you're using to post your flames. You also
> couldn't withdraw money (assuming you have any) from an ATM. Heck,
> you couldn't even place a phone call.

> Kenny - grab your pick-axe and get back to work.


True, Ron, but hey, you still haven't learned any social skills.

Ben
Future Assistant Pool Cleaner Trainee

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-3749B4.20255212042004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> I saw people on recumbents up in the hills where I ride three times
last
> year. One was a guy out near the coast, and I would have to assume he rode
> up over a hill to ge there. Another time was up on Tunitas Creek Road,
> which is a fairly tough climb. But as I approached, I noticed he was on
the
> small gear on the cluster and he wasn't always pedaling. He had some kind
> of motor under the bodywork. Lame... But the last one was a woman on a
> three wheeled one with hand cranks - I saw her up on the steepest part of
> Page Mill Road, in a section which is about an average of 8.5%. That
> impressed me.

I can't remember being outrun by a recumbent ever. I know there are fast
guys out there and fast recumbents but I've sure never seen them "in the
flesh".

I just ran into another one on a ride out to the coffee shop the other day.
He was riding on a pretty busy road with his head about at floor level of an
SUV and barely making 12 mph. When I saw a recumbent in the distance I
didn't expect to catch him since I was just taking it easy. After I caught
up with him he was riding one of those 3 wheelers that they sell out of the
Great Western Bicycle Rally every year.

Now last year I did ride with a recumbent rider that went up hills as fast
as I did but he didn't seem to descend as fast because being lower to the
ground he couldn't see around the corners as well. That was a novelty.

I rode a short wheelbase under-seat steeting recumbent around and I was
impressed with how easy they were to ride. But I didn't perceive any
advantage of it over an upright so why buy one? Besides the fact that it had
a million feet of chain that I could see flinging dirt everywhere.

Tom Kunich

"Pete" <ptr@usaf.com> wrote in message
news:P9Iec.8692$ci4.4956@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
>
> But you knew that, didn't you...

Not until you guys mentioned it.

> I don't know about you, but 30mph on the flat using just your arms sounds
> pretty good to me.

Sounds pretty good to me as well.

> What's with all this ragging on 'bents? They are merely another shape
> bike/trike. More comfortable for some, faster in some situations, slower
in
> others, totally unsuitable for other situations. So what?

Not ragging on them. Stating a fact - those people who claim that bents are
faster that standard bikes based on the results of speed contests involving
fully faired 'bents that require several people to get the rider installed,
upright and moving aren't the sort of people that you can count on for an
unbiased opinion.

We used to have one of those ultra marathoners here that developed some sort
of problem that required him to switch to a 'bent. I don't remember whether
it was medical or just that he thought that a 'bent would be better over
super long distances.

After several years of continuous competition he told us that his average
speed for distance on the 'bent was considerably slower than on an upright
bike. That was pretty strong evidence that 'bents are not faster on the
average.

> They are not the be all and end all of bike design. They are not the
'best'
> solution for all types of riding. But then again, no single bike design
is.

Agreed.

> Name one bike design that is good for everything. Some come closer than
> others, but none are good for all types of riding

I have 13 bikes in my garage. Who would WANT one bike for all things?

Richard

bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?

They are also bad for the spine.
-Rich

Tom Kunich

"Jay" <jay@siberian.org> wrote in message
news:BCA1EF01.34D17%jay@siberian.org...
>
> > bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message
> > news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
> >> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
> >> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
> >> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
> >> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?
>
> >Richard at rander3127@rogers.com wrote on 4/13/04 5:16 PM:
> > They are also bad for the spine.
>
> Could you supply your references to this statement?

Take a ride on one sometime. Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why do
you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?

References,,,,, like there's anyone interested enough in an extreme minority
piece of a minority sport to even bother looking into it.

Jay

> bagelncreamcheese@hotmail.com (meat n potatoes) wrote in message
> news:<1d7e07b1.0404071124.6318750b@posting.google.com>...
>> i've seen alot of stupid shit in my life but never have seen anything
>> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
>> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
>> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?

>Richard at rander3127@rogers.com wrote on 4/13/04 5:16 PM:
> They are also bad for the spine.

Could you supply your references to this statement?

Steven M. O'Neill

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
>without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why do
>you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?

Because there are?

http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1057

--
Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com

NYC Weather Forecast Chart: http://www.panix.com/~steveo/cgi/wgraph.html
--> now also includes Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston and Bennington, VT!

Curtis L. Russell

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:00:15 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Take a ride on one sometime. Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
>without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why do
>you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?

I've ridden a fair varietry of bikes, from single speeds to actual
race frames to touring bikes to recumbents. The recumbents are the
easiest on my back of all, and the tandem recumbent is easily the most
comfortable bike I've ridden over the last 47 years. I've had no back
pain in the decade I've been riding recumbents. So you're guessing
that I've just been lucky?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Kunich

"Steven M. O'Neill" <steveo@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c5i30o$o2d$1@reader2.panix.com...
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
> >without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why
do
> >you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?
>
> Because there are?
>
> http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1057

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHA!!! Will the next NORBA Champion
please lay down!!!!!

Tom Kunich

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
news:mk0q705rdal79fae5hin3a905e4k441255@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:00:15 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Take a ride on one sometime. Smaller wheels are stiffer wheels and riding
> >without being able to stand over potholes is really bad on your back. Why
do
> >you suppose there's no recumbent mountain bikes?
>
> I've ridden a fair varietry of bikes, from single speeds to actual
> race frames to touring bikes to recumbents. The recumbents are the
> easiest on my back of all, and the tandem recumbent is easily the most
> comfortable bike I've ridden over the last 47 years. I've had no back
> pain in the decade I've been riding recumbents. So you're guessing
> that I've just been lucky?

I'm guessing you ride a long wheelbase recumbent.

Curtis L. Russell

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:10:19 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'm guessing you ride a long wheelbase recumbent.

Both my wife and I ride on Vision SWB singles and usually ride on
social rides a VIsion SWB tandem - although that is only in reference
to the design and not the actual wheel base (which is huge).

The SWB singles are comfortable due to the seat design and it absorbs
some of the bounce in the seat itself. I certainly never felt the need
to buy one with front suspension. The tandem is huge and sits on some
rather thick Armafillos. So if the pace is only 15 mph or so, it is a
very comfortable ride. It isn't ever going to keep up with some of the
quicker recumbent tandems, like the RANS Screamer, or our Santana
Arriva S. OTOH, its more fun on those social rides...

I still ride the old Trek 1200 when it is appropriate, and use a Bike
Friday Metro for most commuting. But I traded in a Proteus track bike,
a 1972 Italvega Superspecialle (all Campi, Columbus tubing - a tough
one to let go), a Lotus Supreme, a Proteus custom touring frame and
something else that I forget right now, and I haven't regretted the
trades. My wife gave up a Terry and a cheaper Viner and hasn't
regretted that either. Sold the Arriva S after a month of riding the
Double Vision.

Still, have to admit that I still feel a bit more comfortable in tight
commuting on the Bike Friday. And it is a touch easier to jump
potholes on the Trek. OK, a lot easier.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Zippy the Pinhead

On 13 Apr 2004 15:16:37 -0700, rander3127@rogers.com (Richard) wrote:

> >never have seen anything
>> so ridiculous as bicycles with lazyass seats so the rider can sit back
>> and peddle. if you wanna sit lazily on your ass, sit in a couch.
>> what's with these damn yuppies with their latest dumb craze?
>
>They are also bad for the spine.

Interesting. I guess that's why my family doctor, the guy with the
bad back who used to ride centuries every weekend on his wedgie, has
been riding a bent tandem with his wife since he hurt his back.

Thanks for clearing that up...

Jens Kr. Kirkebø

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:09:33 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> Name one bike design that is good for everything. Some come closer than
>> others, but none are good for all types of riding
>
>I have 13 bikes in my garage. Who would WANT one bike for all things?

Those who don't have a garage with space for 13 bikes ? Some people
live in small apartments and have to store their bike in the bedroom.
Might be crowded with 13 bikes in there

I have one bike for all things. It's a Giant NRS2. Suits me just fine.
I can do singletrack or average 18mph on my (on-road) 7.5 mile commute
in summer or 16mph in winter with studded tires.