Re: recumbent video

Tom Sherman

ryancycles@comcast.net aka Dick "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
> Recumbent video
> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> ever was,

Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
reign.

> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
> Daedalus project engineers.
>
> Dick Ryan
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
--
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

Jay

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fiukid$oh8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ryancycles@comcast.net aka Dick "The Godfather of Recumbents" Ryan wrote:
>> Recumbent video
>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.
>
>> I thought that maybe the old cliche about a picture being
>> worth a thousand words might apply. About 40 seconds is missing from
>> the tape that I hope to fix shortly, (shows the riders passing the
>> upright bike on the downhill). The rider in the downtown Boston part
>> of the tape was myself. The riders in the suburbs were Harry Wallace
>> on the bike with the camera, a bike racer from Fat City Cycles. The
>> other rider was Steve Bussolari from M.I.T. who was one of the
>> Daedalus project engineers.
>>
>> Dick Ryan
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=6O0Q_HQ6FVk
> --
> 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
>
You are right Tom,
On the Internet, one can be whomever...
J.

Chalo

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Dick Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Recumbent video
> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
> > ever was,
>
> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
> reign.

You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!

It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
fully account for my impression. As a member of a chopper and
tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
did.

I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
that safety bikes were so quickly adopted. At best, that means that
'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

Chalo

Paul O

Chalo wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
<snip>
>
> Chalo

And as the flames climbed high into the night, To light the sacrificial
rite.
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the flame war started...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

victor.kan@gmail.com

On Dec 3, 2:30 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
it.

I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
USS steering system it had.

So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
may have ridden.

....

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
tired urban commuter or trail bike.

Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).

It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.

Please give it one more chance.

Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
overcome:

- adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)

- inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding

- difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
are not designed properly

Roger Zoul

"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fdd812a-4c19-4a0f-bfaa-ff3f7750c401@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>> >
>> > Recumbent video
>> > This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>> > fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>> > ever was,
>>
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

Seems to.

As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

So? Just because you got soured doesn't prove anything.

>
> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

This is just one way to look at things....another view is that other than
trying to solve a problem, folks are looking to provide more options for
HPVs.

At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors.

That's just steer nonsense.

But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

You're simply narrow-minded in your view that there must be just "one"
recumbent bike that will suit all. Just as DFs have pros/cons so do the
various types of 'bents. Yet, plenty of people can learn to ride all of them
if they are not so closed-minded that they cannot give them a fair chance.

>
> Chalo

ryancycles@comcast.net

, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> Chalo

Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
recumbents a curiosity?

Dick Ryan

Tom Sherman

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>> Recumbent video
>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>> ever was,
>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>> reign.
>
> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>
> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
> fully account for my impression.

It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when
Chalo's size is taken into account.

> As a member of a chopper and
> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
> did.

Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension
bicycle shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.

> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.

Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
past (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.

> At best, that means that
> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.

The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
and the great amount of misinformation about.

--
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

Ryan Cousineau

In article
<ef736741-f13b-43c9-be43-cf3f9bbc3998@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"ryancycles@comcast.net" <ryancycles@comcast.net> wrote:

> , the recumbent
> > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
> >
> > Chalo
>
> Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> recumbents a curiosity?
>
> Dick Ryan

No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

--
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

Roger Zoul

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Dick Ryan wrote:
>>>> Recumbent video
>>>> This is a promotional video I made about twenty years ago. Due to the
>>>> fact that misinformation about recumbents is as common today as it
>>>> ever was,
>>> Especially on Usenet where the "experts" with minimal to no experience
>>> reign.
>>
>> You conveniently overlook the fact that some of us, myself included,
>> used to think recumbents were a good idea-- until we tried them!
>>
>> It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
>> how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
>> a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
>> fully account for my impression.
>
> It is unlikely that either of these fit Chalo properly, and both likely
> had way to much weight on the rear wheel for proper handling, when Chalo's
> size is taken into account.
>
>> As a member of a chopper and
>> tallbike club, I've ridden a whole bunch of completely effed-up bikes
>> that were not able to sour me on the categories they belonged to (even
>> if some of them happened to be the only examples within their
>> categories). My first couple of normal bikes (a too-big drop bar
>> Huffy and a 26" AMF 10-speed) were just terrible, but they didn't turn
>> me off of riding them the way that my first few rides on a 'bent
>> did.
>
> Hey, my first bike was a late 1970's AMF 10-speed. Heavy, but actually
> adequate - certainly better than the contemporary full-suspension bicycle
> shaped objects sold at Sprawl-Mart.
>
>> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
>> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
>> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
>> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
>> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the past
> (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
>> At best, that means that
>> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
>> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
>> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
>> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
>> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
>> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
>> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
>> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different and
> the great amount of misinformation about.
>

I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
others for particular purposes. I have a drop-bar road bike (not an
aggressive racing geometry), and LWB recumbent, and a trike. Each is very
different to ride, and each shines in ways the others don't. You'd think
that people who claim to really enjoy cycling would enjoy the variety that
different types of bikes offer, but in the end, people are people and
narrowmindedness seems to be wherever you find them.

victor.kan@gmail.com

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

victor.kan@gmail.com

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> I really don't get this recumbent vs. DF debate. It makes no sense
> whatsoever, if you ask me. Sure, if a person as a favorite bike, then by all
> means ride it has much as you like. My personal experience says that all
> bikes have their own set of pros/cons and that some bikes are better than
> others for particular purposes.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some folks in both camps can't seem to accept
that the other camp's bikes have merit and are worthwhile, and that
maybe their negative experiences with one or the other are not
universal either with the bikes and/or the riders themselves.

Chalo

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Dick Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > , the recumbent
> > > bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> > Wheel and Sprocket in Wisconsin (one of the top 100 shops in the
> > country according to Bicycle retailer and industry news) sells
> > approximately 800 recumbents a year. Do you think they consider
> > recumbents a curiosity?
>
> No, but I think Chalo might consider Wheel and Sprocket a curiosity shop.

Along with Rideable Bicycle Replicas of Alameda, CA:

http://hiwheel.com/

Bad ideas don't usually go away; mostly they just go nowhere.

Chalo

Olebiker

On Dec 5, 2:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Olebiker" <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4ea238df-0182-4100-871f-ab54c9e9ba39@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:39 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fj4ud1$hnl$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> >> > Chalo Colina wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
> >> >> tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
> >> >> keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
> >> >> come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
> >> >> that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
>
> >> > Not true. The better designers have learned from the mistakes of the
> >> > past
> >> > (e.g. Hypercycle) that led to much of the negative opinion towards
> >> > recumbents. The poor designs are gone, or very marginal in the market.
>
> >> Recumbent designers made a wrong turn when they opted for the short
> >> wheelbase configuration. Recumbents need to be long wheelbase for a
> >> variety
> >> of reasons. They also need to have above seat steering. Easy Racers
> >> almost
> >> got it right, but had too low a bottom bracket. Dick Ryan got it wrong
> >> with
> >> his under seat steering and his bottom bracket was also too low.
>
> >> I maintain that there is a best single design for a recumbent just as
> >> there
> >> was for the upright and the fact that recumbent design is STILL all over
> >> the
> >> map is an indication of the failure of the recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> >> At best, that means that
> >> >> 'bents are no further along after more than 100 years than upright
> >> >> bikes were after 50 years-- even though they have the benefit of a
> >> >> huge knowledge base and engineering principles developed for their
> >> >> predecessors. But I think it's worse than that. I believe that the
> >> >> lack of a compelling solution to the problem of the recumbent bike
> >> >> after so many years of attempts strongly suggests that no satisfactory
> >> >> solution is forthcoming, and that like the dicycle, the recumbent
> >> >> bicycle is fated to remain a curiosity for all time.
>
> >> > The main problem with selling recumbents is aversion to the different
> >> > and
> >> > the great amount of misinformation about.
>
> >> Recumbents are not so difficult that the average person cannot figure
> >> them
> >> out rather readily. They do not sell because there is not one design that
> >> has yet proven itself to be superior to all the others. Further, very
> >> many
> >> recumbent manufacturers promote things other than comfort which is a huge
> >> mistake. Recumbents are all about comfort and little else. They are ideal
> >> for older folks for whom comfort is the major consideration, not for
> >> youngsters who want speed and tricks. Uprights are or them; recumbents
> >> are
> >> for the rest of us - if only they would get the design right!
>
> >> Now if geniuses like Dick Ryan could only have gotten the design better,
> >> most older folks by now who are still riding bicycles would be riding
> >> recumbents instead of those torture machines known as uprights or diamond
> >> frames. I think among the RANS stable of bikes that there is the perfect
> >> recumbent, but they are all over the map with way too many designs. Like
> >> all
> >> the others, RANS got sidetracked on short wheelbase, an absolute
> >> abomination
> >> of a design for a recumbent bicycle.
>
> >> One final consideration. It may be that even if the recumbent
> >> manufacturers
> >> could have gotten it right and settled on one design, that it still would
> >> not have made any difference. Most folks over 40 do not ride bicycles.
> >> Instead, if they do anything at all physical, they walk. This is not a
> >> bad
> >> idea since it is what nature designed us to do, not to pedal bicycles.
>
> >> Thus spake Zarathustra.
>
> > I get so tickled at bent riders trying to convince me that I am
> > miserble in my upright bike. Methinks they doth protest too much.
>
> Are you yet over 40? Do you ride 5 or 6 hours a day for weeks on end? Or
> rather do you just occasionally ride about town for an hour or so. If the
> latter, then you do not need a recumbent. However, if the former, I suspect
> you do need a recumbent, or at least you will once you get old enough
> provided you ride a lot.
>
> The main advantage of a recumbent is that you will continue to ride it into
> your old age, something that is almost impossible to do on an upright
> because of the discomfort factor.
> - Show quoted text -

I am 57 and ride 3 to 4 hours each day on the weekend. I just don't
have a problem.

I expect that one of these days I will try a recumbent, but right now
I love riding a wedgie.