Re: Trek and Cannondale recumbents

Peter Clinch

Tom Sherman wrote:

> The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
> ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.

No. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a significant number of kids
who prized "simplicity and ruggedness" as primary Lust Factors in a
bike. They want something that fits the current value of "cool". When
I was a lad it was a drop bar "racer", and the more gears you had the
more cool you had. We rode them through the local woods and never
actually changed out of top if we could get away with it, not something
which actually /worked/ that well, but functionality was never the issue!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tom Sherman

Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
>> ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.
>
> No. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a significant number of kids
> who prized "simplicity and ruggedness" as primary Lust Factors in a
> bike. They want something that fits the current value of "cool". When
> I was a lad it was a drop bar "racer", and the more gears you had the
> more cool you had. We rode them through the local woods and never
> actually changed out of top if we could get away with it, not something
> which actually /worked/ that well, but functionality was never the issue!

Let me rephrase - one of the most appealing aspects of BMX bicycles for
the parents of children are the simplicity and ruggedness, which
eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.

Most parents lack the time, tools and skills for proper bicycle maintenance.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:30:54 +0000, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> The most appealing aspects of BMX for children are the simplicity and
>> ruggedness, which eliminates the need for most maintenance and repairs.
>
>No. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a significant number of kids
>who prized "simplicity and ruggedness" as primary Lust Factors in a
>bike. They want something that fits the current value of "cool". When
>I was a lad it was a drop bar "racer", and the more gears you had the
>more cool you had. We rode them through the local woods and never
>actually changed out of top if we could get away with it, not something
>which actually /worked/ that well, but functionality was never the issue!
>
>Pete.

Yes....I can remember all the way back to the early seventies.....the
BIG thing then was a Schwinn ten-speed. Big, Heavy, bt was the "COOL"
thing to have. I rode and rode it. Even sometimes taking to the
trails to see how far I could jump it. Didn't even think about the
possibilities of what would happen to those gears in the event of an
accident.

Now it's no longer the "COOL" factor for me. It more of comfort and
the ability to be "SEEN" by drivers on the road.

ZBicyclist

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation
> purposes. It is only in the countries where most use motorized
> individual transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.

Worldwide, the most popular style by far is like this new one from World
Bicycle Relief:
http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_...07_modified.jpg
or these classic Flying Pigeons (a good article on the history of the
Flying Pigeon, by the way)
http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,...15416-1,00.html
An upscale version is made by Pashley
http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/r...-sovereign.html

Any color you want, as long as it's black.
Heavy but sturdy. Often double top tube for added strength and to support
loads.
Rack suitable for holding another person, a couple of milk cans or fuel
tanks, etc.
One gear
Fenders
Often rod brakes (not on this bike).
Kickstand
Chain cage to protect your pants
I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
it.

For what these bikes are used for, this is an eminently practical design.

Wilson Warmouth

"ZBicyclist" <ZBicyclist@excite.com> wrote in message
news:rEx7j.3633$Vq.949@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Actually, worldwide, most bicycles are ridden for transportation
>> purposes. It is only in the countries where most use motorized
>> individual transportation that bicycles are viewed primarily as toys.
>
> Worldwide, the most popular style by far is like this new one from World
> Bicycle Relief:
> http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/_...07_modified.jpg
> or these classic Flying Pigeons (a good article on the history of the
> Flying Pigeon, by the way)
> http://www.bicycling.com/article/1,...15416-1,00.html
> An upscale version is made by Pashley
> http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/r...-sovereign.html
>
> Any color you want, as long as it's black.
> Heavy but sturdy. Often double top tube for added strength and to support
> loads.
> Rack suitable for holding another person, a couple of milk cans or fuel
> tanks, etc.
> One gear
> Fenders
> Often rod brakes (not on this bike).
> Kickstand
> Chain cage to protect your pants
> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it.
>
> For what these bikes are used for, this is an eminently practical design.
>
>

Thanks for the interesting links. Naturally I would go for the Pashley
Gov'nor.

Peter Clinch

ZBicyclist wrote:

> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it.

"Moustache bars" is one I've seen quite a bit.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Wilson Warmouth

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5s7pibF17cilaU1@mid.individual.net...
> ZBicyclist wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't
>> know
>> it.
>
> "Moustache bars" is one I've seen quite a bit.
>
> Pete.
> --

More akin to Priest Bars/ Dove Bars/ Albatross Bars

http://bessasandackerman.com/blog/?p=46

Moustache Bars look like this:

http://www.stanford.edu/~dru/moustache.html

Tom Sherman

ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> ...
> An upscale version is made by Pashley
> http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/r...-sovereign.html
> ...
> I'm sure there's a term to describe this handlebar style, but I don't know
> it....

North Road Bars. Now available in aluminium alloy from Nitto:
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/three.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

gdewilde@gmail.com

On Dec 10, 5:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> There is no such thing as a "serious" bike market. What planet do you live
> on? Almost everyone in the world thinks of a bike as a toy for kids. Please
> get real!

Here in the Netherlands a bike is a very serious means of
transportation. Most of them are older then 30 years.

If you live far outside town it makes sense to use a car.

If you need milk from 2 blocks away you utilise the velocipede or you
go walk even.

Walking is a very serious means of transportation.

> Again, I agree with Ryan here. I don't think marketing, good, bad or
> indifferent, has much to do with it. There is only a small group of folks in
> the world who are smart enough to want a recumbent. And they will get one
> whether they are badly marketed or well marketed. We don't even need bike
> shops in order to accomplish our goal. Hells Bells, if worse comes to worse,
> we will build one ourselves from scratch.
>

I talk to one about it one time.

He said it's scary people know exactly what they want. A normal bike
with nothing that wasn't in the picture when they pictured it.

The tour the France created peek oil? O_o

____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

Ryan Cousineau

In article <fjlo2k$g0t$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <fjkpvq$18e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>> In article <fji5jp$5g6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>>> In article <fjhi67$h6d$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ZBicyclist aka Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> [sales history of recumbents versus mountain bikes]

> >>>> Also, at the time ATBs were marketed as being more comfortable than
> >>>> drop-bar road bicycles - not exactly a promise they have fulfilled, eh?
> >>>> It seems that the manufacturers are now introducing "comfort bicycles"
> >>>> to meet the unfulfilled need for a comfortable (to the non-hardcore
> >>>> rider) upright. And the drop-bar road bicycle has returned to the
> >>>> "crappy department-store bike" category.
> >>> Comfort bikes look like rigid MTBs. It's more that the race/freeride end
> >>> of the market has specialized and gone upmarket, and the vestigial knobs
> >>> have disappeared from the comfort bikes.
> >
> > By 1983, Trek and Schwinn had mountain bikes for sale, with Raleigh and
> > Bridgestone there by 1984. That level of market entry indicates that by
> > 1982 (given typical product lag times), the existence of the market was
> > clear enough that bike companies started to want in, and by 1983 the
> > sense was there that this was an very interesting bicycle category.
> >
> > http://www.firstflightbikes.com/frames/museum.htm
>
> Back when I was in high school in the mid 1980s, Bicycling (hey, I was
> too young to know better) was promoting the mountain bike as a more
> comfortable alternative to the drop-bar road bicycle due to the more
> upright seating position and longer cranks! (We all know how well that
> worked out.) Just as Jobst likes to complain about recumbent
> evangelists, the cycling world was full of ATB evangelists at that time,
> and they did their job well.
>
> >>> If I thought that recumbents were underperforming their "natural" place
> >>> in the market, I'd put the blame largely at the feet of the horrible
> >>> first impression their low-speed handling makes.
> >>>
> >> The low speed handling is not bad, merely different. People are used to
> >> upright bicycles, not recumbents. For me, the occasional ride on my ATB
> >> feels really odd at first, with all the body motion required to mount
> >> and get started; and sitting WAY UP THERE on a perch is also odd.
> >
> > No, seriously Tom, recumbent handling at low speeds is objectively bad:
> > their low moment of inertia about the roll axis makes 'em tippy (just as
> > tallbikes and highwheelers are eerily stable at low speeds*), and that
> > contributes to the steering that's much more fussy than that of an
> > upright bike, and there's not a lot you can do about that.
>
> That is only a concern if you are one of those people who likes to roll
> around at 10 to 15 kph speeds, or are riding technical off road trails.
> The former will not be going that far, and is best served by a city
> bike, since comfort is not a concern over short distances (e.g. the
> Dutch utility rider and bicycle). The latter group is of course best
> served by a true ATB that is NOT a good road bicycle.

Here's a funny thing Tom: almost every bike on the planet has been
ridden at 10-15 km/h. Bikes that can't do that well are badly
compromised. Here's another point: if we exclude the seriously technical
trails now tackled by serious mountain bikers, and limit ourselves to
the kind of low-challenge roots-and-ruts trail that can be found in a
lot of parks, a road bike or mountain bike (preferably sans rear
suspension) can do those things pretty well.

> > They're not menaces by any means, but it would take an awfully icy set
> > of veins to (as one example) trackstand a recumbent, but that's a trick
> > I can manage while seated on my uprights.
>
> But who NEEDS to trackstand outside of the velodrome?

Need is a very strong word. I suppose nobody needs to hop curbs, either.
But both are quite practical (and dare I say it, entertaining) things to
do in urban riding.

> > Back to my original point: blaming marketing failures on the non-arrival
> > of the recumbent boom is silly. It verges on being an unfounded
> > conspiracy theory. You know what mountain bikers did to convince people
> > to join their ranks? They rode their bikes. It was remarkably convincing.
>
> Actually, no. Drop bar road bicycle and upright "comfort" bike sales are
> increasing as a proportion of total bicycle sales, as the on-road
> limitations of the ATB become more evident. Meanwhile, ATBs are becoming
> more specialized for off road (and more expensive), and less suitable
> than ever for road riding (e.g. full suspension XC, downhill, free ride,
> etc.).

Discovering that mountain bikes have started waning (slightly) in
popularity now that they are the most common sort of bicycle sold in the
US, and 25 years after their introduction, does not do much for your
thesis.

As mountain bikes have become more specialized, they have become less
preferable as a city bike substitute. Indeed, the original serious
mountain bikes were mutated fat-tire cruisers, the closest thing to a
city bike that was available on these shores. By 1984, mountain bikes
were more like a 10-pounds-lighter city bike (plus knobby tires) than
any other bicycle of the era.

Meanwhile, the reactionary singlespeed trend (often coupled with a rigid
frame) is taking mountain bikes back to a simpler era.

> > I'm not discounting the possibility that recumbents could still boom.
> > They have some advantages in certain applications. But Tom, I think you
> > tend to understate the disadvantages, both visceral and practical.
>
> And I think you understate the effect of the vast majority of LBS and
> their staff having an ignorant and negative attitude towards recumbents.

It's possible, but I doubt it. The only figure I could find online
suggests that recumbents are around 0.4% of US bicycles by volume, and
4-6% by value. At a guess, that's a figure that has been eclipsed in the
last five years by the rise in demand for cyclocross bikes.

I think I understand CX bikes quite well, since I've raced the sport for
a couple of years, seen the great rise in the popularity of both the
sport and the bikes, and have built up a couple of CX bikes, too.

In essence, they can be thought of as superlight mountain bikes with
drop bars, or as road bikes with clearance for big tires. The single
notable innovation in modern CX bikes is the creation of the bar-top
interrupter lever, which makes the top-bar postion really practical.

They're selling like hotcakes, particularly to urban riders. Why? They
fulfill the desire for a sturdy and versatile machine.

CX bikes are practically the anti-recumbent: maneuverable in close
quarters, comfortable on a ridiculously wide variety of terrain, able to
conquer everything from curbs to potholes to stairs, compact, and light.

Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful. I think the
single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

I once glibly summed up the state of recumbents as "the fast ones are
sketchy, the comfy ones are slow," and I stand by that. The kind of
recumbents that are demonstrably faster than road bikes (TT style) in a
time trial environment are generally very compromised in a wide variety
of ways compared to upright bikes. This bike, in general, is going to
commit all the weight positioning oddities, bulkiness, and generally
fussy bike-handling sins that are typical of recumbents. In exchange, it
will have a slightly higher top speed than a well-configured TT bike,
which is basically a road bike with an extra handlebar position and
funny wheels. The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as
road machines.

Perhaps a little suitability trial might illustrate why I think people
find recumbents problematic. I have modeled all of the following tests
after elements of my basic bike commutes, and which I suspect are quite
typical of "serious" urban riding. Feel free to dispute the nature of
these tests: almost none of the moves or obstacles I mention are
absolutely necessary to my commute, though in most cases, avoiding them
would likely add minutes to a commute that is about 30 minutes long.

You can envision these tests as either time trials, qualitative,
pass/fail. There's a case for each approach.

1) Remove bicycle from shed. From a standing start, ride 50 feet on
grass, down a short (3' drop, ~50% grade) slope of grass, across a
sidewalk. Exit sidewalk, pause 1 second on hard-packed gravel surface
(simulating a wait for cross traffic). Start again, left turn to enter
roadway.

2) hill trial: from standing start, ride 1.8 km up 7% (average) grade.
At the halfway mark, peak grade is 15% around a moderate right-hand
curve. On an upright bike, my speed often falls below 10 km/h at that
mark.

3) curb hop: drop off a standard curb. Now, ride up a standard curb.

4) the office: dismount. Pass through four self-closing doors. The first
two have push-button opening, the last two do not. Climb one flight of
stairs with your bicycle. Lock to bike rack.

5) lane-split: ride 1 km between two lines of stopped traffic. At the
end, do a 90-degree right followed by a 90-degree left in 12 feet,
simulating the shift from centreline to curbside between two stopped
cars (assume 6' from bumper to bumper).

6) home again: from the roadway, do a sharp right. Now you are riding
the course from test #1 in the other direction. UP a short steep slope
to a grass lawn, then 50' on the grass, dismount, stow bicycle.

These are some of the obstacles I face on my commute. It's not all of
them. I would posit that if you want to figure out why recumbents aren't
very popular, it's because a lot more cyclists on this continent have
rides that look like my commute than have rides that look like, well,
whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

I normally do my commute on an early-80s tourer set up with rack and
fenders. I have done it on my race bike, my cx bike, and my hardtail
mountain bike. About a year ago, it snowed heavily, and as a novelty I
chose to ride to work on my cyclocross bike (I also had some concern
that the transit system might fail, and I definitely did not want to use
my car).

The CX bike found traction where the cars could not, and happily
negotiated hub-deep snow when asked to. All that from what is basically
a road bike with knobby tires.

Can your bike do that?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

charlesA@TbarraballD.OTcom

In message <rcousine-C6A774.00512812122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.ne
t]>
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:

[snip]

> I would posit that if you want to figure out why recumbents aren't
> very popular, it's because a lot more cyclists on this continent have
> rides that look like my commute than have rides that look like, well,
> whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

Smashing post!

Thanks.

(I still hanker after a recumbent trike tourer...)

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

Jon

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote

> Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
> by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful.

Clearly, if you need/want to do trackstands, you choose a bike that
facilitates such. I cannot recall the last time I saw a commuter or
recreational rider doing a trackstand, but I don't live or work in a
central business district of a major urban city. Nor do I recall
seeing anyone on a club ride on road bike jumping a curb.

> single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
> that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

That's not it. %^) Urban commuter "road warriors", at least in the
west, represent only a small percentage of bike sales. The *idea*
that recumbents are awkward/hard-to-ride/poor-at-low-speed
may be part of the marketing challenge for recumbents. There
are much more general reasons why recumbents are and will
likely remain a nique market.

> The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as road machines.

True, but that's a false dichotomy. A lot of road-capable recumbents
are quite competitive with road uprights, given riders of similar
capabilities.

Three of us were doing a Saturday ride. Two on 'high racer' style SWB
recumbents, one on a medium-weight upright road bike. We're riding
along into a moderate headwind. On a slight downhill, the upright
rider is having to pedal to keep up while the recumbents are coasting.
Going up the hills, none of us are sprinting, and by all appearances
and heart rate monitor measurements, all are working about as hard
to maintain the same speed up hill.

> whatever the rides are that make you like your recumbent so much.

I haven't ridden an upright more than a few hundred feet in the past
ten years... Every ride is one that makes me like my recumbents! %^)

- Short errands to the store.
- Weekend recreational rides (12-18 mph) with friends.
- Late afternoon rides on the rail trail.
- After work "fitness" rides.
- Self-supported tours.
- Conversational rides (8-10 mph) with friends.
- ...

The *best* bicycle for someone has nothing to do with geometry.
The *best* bicycle for someone is the one they will ride.

Jon

Peter Clinch

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Note how well such a bicycle is suited to an urban environment. Those,
> by the way, are the same people who find trackstands useful. I think the
> single biggest thing stopping the ascendancy of recumbency is the fact
> that the bikes are as awkward as a Hummer H1 in the city.

Their actual awkwardness, or their *perceived* awkwardness? If you want
to tracksatnds and kerb hopping they're not so good, but there's plenty
of commuters that don't, and a compact like the HP Vel Spirit still
gives good pilot view and manoeuvrability in close traffic, but how will
people know without trying, and how will they try with hardly any
dealers, and how will there be dealers with such a small market and so
on around a circular argument.

> I once glibly summed up the state of recumbents as "the fast ones are
> sketchy, the comfy ones are slow," and I stand by that.

How many have you ridden? Do you really think something like an HPVel
Speedmachine or a Nazca Fuego is genuinely less comfortable than a UCI
compliant road bike? or looking the other way, are "sketchy"?

> The kind of
> recumbents that are demonstrably faster than road bikes (TT style) in a
> time trial environment are generally very compromised in a wide variety
> of ways compared to upright bikes.

But then a TT bike is generally very compromised in a wide variety of
ways compared to /other/ upright bikes. Or is there some other reason
why I very rarely see TT bikes outside of TTs, or what looks remarkably
like people training for TTs?

> The really fast recumbents are essentially unusable as
> road machines.

No, because velomobiles are "really fast recumbents", and are typified
by being eminently practical. They get to be really fast by having
superior aerodynamics from full bodies, which further allow a good range
of cargo options and weather protection. Models like the Quest, Mango,
Versatile and Leitra. Note that the 800+ mile UK "End to End" record,
from Land's End in the extreme SW to John o' Groats at the NE tip of
Scotalnd along normal roads, up and down all sorts of hills with no
special traffic-stopping provision, is held on a faired recumbent trike
(a bit like a velomobile, in fact).

> Perhaps a little suitability trial might illustrate why I think people
> find recumbents problematic.

All very well if those are typical, but I suspect a great many bike
commutes work along lines of "get bike out of shed, get on, ride x km
along roads and/or bike paths, get off at work, repeat in reverse".

> The CX bike found traction where the cars could not, and happily
> negotiated hub-deep snow when asked to. All that from what is basically
> a road bike with knobby tires.
>
> Can your bike do that?

No. But then, I don't want or need it to. If it's "hub deep snow" I'll
be on my cross country skis. OTOH, does your CX have tricycle stability
on sheet ice and keep the sleet off you as well as a velomobile? (like
to see you out-trackstand someone on a trike! ;-))

It's horses for courses. I don't think kerb-jumping is such a general
feature of the world's commutes that it renders recumbents a poor choice
for commutes. What /does/ render them a poor choice is they're hard to
find, vary so much between examples and from anything else you've ever
ridden that you can't mail-order with any degree of confidence, and they
don't have the dramatic cost benefits of mass production that uprights
do. For a half hour commute ride every day the comfort benefits of a
recumbent are pretty moot for most riders, especially in comparison to
the extra $1,-2,000 change they might have in their pockets, even
assuming there's anywhere close they can try a representative sample.
So, do you cross the country and spend a fortune, or get something local
and a fraction of the price which is perfectly adequate? Can't say that
the former looks appealing, even if they /did/ jump kerbs...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)

O.K....here's the MAIN thing.......

I ride for ME and NO ONE ELSE!!!!!

I ride because I ENJOY IT!!!!!

I do NOT ride to satisfy other people.

I own NO AUTOMOBILE and I ride either one of my two bikes.

ONE is a Trek 3900 that has been customized.

The other is a Sun Tadpole Trike.

I find the I spend more time on the trike than the upright and am even
considering selling it.