Recumbents and hairy hills

[[email protected]]

I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an upright,
I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not so easy.
And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be VERY tricky.
But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear (and, for the
flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.

What do people who own those do? Or can they deliver much more
than 120 watts over a sustained period?

Of course, a tow rope and harness is another solution :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Trevor A Panther[_3_]]

> wrote in message ...
>
> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an upright,
> I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not so easy.
> And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be VERY tricky.
> But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear (and, for the
> flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>
> What do people who own those do? Or can they deliver much more
> than 120 watts over a sustained period?
>
> Of course, a tow rope and harness is another solution :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>

When i was considering buying a Trice some 4 years ago it was one problem
that I raised with them.
What i actually did, within their standard specs was go for the very lowest
gearing available without incurring extra costs.

I too was concerned with what I would do on a long climb (taking into
account my advancing yesrs) and i just couldnt see it bweing easy to get off
and push!

trices answer was " just apply the "optional" click on" brake and have a
rest.

Since we actually fell out a bit ( well quite a lot actually due to total
lack of info about delivery after i had paid ) I have never experienced the
problem. And I bought my Thorne Raven tour with Rohloff hub instead. I must
say that as i have had an extremely happy relationship with my thorne ( it
is used every day as a general work horse and has taken me on several
European camping tours). i know that i would never have used a recumbent
trike anywhere near as much. And my experience in touring in Europe --
mainly on road has certainly taken me in areas where a trike with trailer
would have been nearly impossibly difficult to make progress.

Additionally it would never have coped with normal day to day use , on road
, shopping and just doing local journeys. Just would create to many small
hinderances.

As us ual i have go on tangents from the otrigianl question.

But I never fancied having to stop on a hill when I ran out out puff,
applied a brake and take a rest -- to be faced with the same inclione which
had forced me to stop.

I don't mind admitting that I have pushed up many hills in my time and
cannot see that a recumbent trike would not need a similar approach at
times.!



--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:19:25 -0000, "Trevor A Panther"
> wrote:

>But I never fancied having to stop on a hill when I ran out out puff,
>applied a brake and take a rest -- to be faced with the same inclione which
>had forced me to stop.

I usually stop to take a breather every 100m of ascent on big climbs.

I have only once pushed, and that was on a short and fierce climb on
Exmoor.

BTW - the Veteran Car Run to Brighton was a great success this year.
Ten cyclists made the 65 mile trip with five hundred 100 year old
cars; last year just four cyclists, in atrocious weather, made
Brighton.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/11/2010 21:44, wrote:
> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an upright,
> I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not so easy.
> And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be VERY tricky.
> But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear (and, for the
> flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>
> What do people who own those do? Or can they deliver much more
> than 120 watts over a sustained period?
>
> Of course, a tow rope and harness is another solution :-)


I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3cWBAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/1p0H/joslcFPnya3UBhFeoQDDjW4
LnDBDU3axWITFAz9+2oEFz7taOkoCiSgu65q3zbnzgau/bVpRR6ovJJTVRXY7QHL
34hRqJ/dL1uh9yFTzvz8/zdhMHm/E9xEc0UO7TblUp0Q8mUIw4zT22Dh1WmA80uB
hDiYJnb7ZX00xr8oXJmDellYA5Bsw63dGEQ49ONTf7/cv9dUH/h8YTdKGLhrmdbC
XjdR0mZk91gAG58919SPQoYsjz6EM3VZzqyrNLJLGqTAkuGx7u M+IHqsxSFNO8l6
r8JOixbQcugNYI0xvc0Ni41+/DhcDXjuASpbEE57eK8K17xtSQRkS3acog4MOpE=
=F9YS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>
>> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
>> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an upright,
>> I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not so easy.
>> And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be VERY tricky.
>> But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear (and, for the
>> flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>>
>> What do people who own those do? Or can they deliver much more
>> than 120 watts over a sustained period?
>>
>> Of course, a tow rope and harness is another solution :-)
>
>I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.

That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
issue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Marc[_5_]]

On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
> In >,
> Just zis Guy, you > wrote:
>>
>>> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
>>> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an upright,
>>> I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not so easy.
>>> And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be VERY tricky.
>>> But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear (and, for the
>>> flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>>>
>>> What do people who own those do? Or can they deliver much more
>>> than 120 watts over a sustained period?
>>>
>>> Of course, a tow rope and harness is another solution :-)
>>
>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>> bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>
> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
> is range. How do they manage that?
Triple, Rohlhoff and rear block?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>> >bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
> is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
> double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
> issue.

For loaded touring in hilly country, more gears is good. 20 is not
"gross overkill" if you're trying to keep in your happy band of rpm.

Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive. How many does that give you?
8 x 2 x 3 x 2. Never at a loss for one in that little lot :-)

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3cy7AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/IeEH/jwK12kjkX+w2qi86LXYx6iE
XKp1Fmwef5YM5kqMomkJ475tnB6IX1znXTK4vHD3Oisy8asTzp B/PsWAztHu5eV1
ybo9Z5Q4gkXzOpsZNXz1e2zJT3EFltyP5k9coNpgDLDKI3hqFw GiE9/aSYl70dH3
iQVyz/R87O/z+XG+pcNDhCu+kpfllz6x9umeHTnuDny4Y3p2H85qe+OtY4zeQ TjI
XGfvshRbII61i5HPgrs7eBS0yta2hHgZUdbYziM9WKKxAFieWp rw0g9B8Cf03zmo
8PrTgthAjdpHKFpB23mQeZJAbECjvsUR7ZeBESLDKXiqWIbGqD Yu1nYwlAyrA2g=
=34Ju
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:24:43 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>>> >bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>> is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
>> double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
>> issue.
>
>For loaded touring in hilly country, more gears is good. 20 is not
>"gross overkill" if you're trying to keep in your happy band of rpm.
>
>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive. How many does that give you?
>8 x 2 x 3 x 2. Never at a loss for one in that little lot :-)

How much variation is there in the gearing? I expect a great many
gears are redundant.

I can understand the merits of using a 250% Schlumpf with a 526%
Rohloff, giving 1312% gear range, but even then 7 gears are redundant:

Schlumpf - Rohloff gear ratios (Rohloff gear 11 is direct drive)
Gear 1 - 1 : 0.28
Gear 1 - 2 : 0.32
Gear 1 - 3 : 0.36
Gear 1 - 4 : 0.41
Gear 1 - 5 : 0.47
Gear 1 - 6 : 0.53
Gear 1 - 7 : 0.60
Gear 1 - 8 : 0.68
Gear 1 - 9 : 0.77
Gear 1 - 10 : 0.88
Gear 1 - 11 : 1.00
Gear 1 - 12 : 1.14
Gear 1 - 13 : 1.29
Gear 1 - 14 : 1.47
Gear 2 - 1 : 0.70
Gear 2 - 2 : 0.79
Gear 2 - 3 : 0.90
Gear 2 - 4 : 1.02
Gear 2 - 5 : 1.16
Gear 2 - 6 : 1.32
Gear 2 - 7 : 1.50
Gear 2 - 8 : 1.71
Gear 2 - 9 : 1.94
Gear 2 - 10 : 2.20
Gear 2 - 11 : 2.50
Gear 2 - 12 : 2.84
Gear 2 - 13 : 3.23
Gear 2 - 14 : 3.67

[Trevor A Panther[_3_]]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:24:43 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>>>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>>>> >bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>>> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>>> is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
>>> double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
>>> issue.
>>
>>For loaded touring in hilly country, more gears is good. 20 is not
>>"gross overkill" if you're trying to keep in your happy band of rpm.
>>
>>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive. How many does that give you?
>>8 x 2 x 3 x 2. Never at a loss for one in that little lot :-)
>
> How much variation is there in the gearing? I expect a great many
> gears are redundant.
>
> I can understand the merits of using a 250% Schlumpf with a 526%
> Rohloff, giving 1312% gear range, but even then 7 gears are redundant:
>
> Schlumpf - Rohloff gear ratios (Rohloff gear 11 is direct drive)
> Gear 1 - 1 : 0.28
> Gear 1 - 2 : 0.32
> Gear 1 - 3 : 0.36
> Gear 1 - 4 : 0.41
> Gear 1 - 5 : 0.47
> Gear 1 - 6 : 0.53
> Gear 1 - 7 : 0.60
> Gear 1 - 8 : 0.68
> Gear 1 - 9 : 0.77
> Gear 1 - 10 : 0.88
> Gear 1 - 11 : 1.00
> Gear 1 - 12 : 1.14
> Gear 1 - 13 : 1.29
> Gear 1 - 14 : 1.47
> Gear 2 - 1 : 0.70
> Gear 2 - 2 : 0.79
> Gear 2 - 3 : 0.90
> Gear 2 - 4 : 1.02
> Gear 2 - 5 : 1.16
> Gear 2 - 6 : 1.32
> Gear 2 - 7 : 1.50
> Gear 2 - 8 : 1.71
> Gear 2 - 9 : 1.94
> Gear 2 - 10 : 2.20
> Gear 2 - 11 : 2.50
> Gear 2 - 12 : 2.84
> Gear 2 - 13 : 3.23
> Gear 2 - 14 : 3.67
>
You can of course produce very low gearing with money.

My "none" experience was that the cost of the basic trike (listed at about
£1700 then) -- on the road with fairings, lights computer, pannier racks
etc was of the order of £3000 + . And this was buying the "producton model"
of ICE without any frills. It was the case then that ICE would not fit any
"extras" other than am optiional lower gearing with a different cassette --
but it was a 3 x 9 deraileur system.

If you were wanting anything else the prices rose immeasureable and you were
then in the world of custom built trikes which were certainly out of my
price range

I have just looked at the ICE site for the first time since 2006 and the
models are different now but I remember that I was buying a their QNT (
narrow track version of their touring trike) which was supposed to be
"foldable" -- I would prefer to call it "dismantleable"). It came in kit
form and it was necessary to build it myself!

Their pricing policy has not basically changed.

On their website the "Sprint" modle is listed at £!900 but that is a
totally false price since to actually tour with their "touriong trike" and
use it on the road -- well you need "upgrades"

I just went throught the process of seleting to various "upgrades" to make
it roadable and the price comes up to £3012! and that is without a
fairing -- and I would definitely not use a recumbent on road -- in all
weathers without one. I can't see the cost of a fairing shown on their site
but i bet that if one is available from ICE it will put the price up by
another £500..


But I suspect that such an addition takes one away from their "standard
production" models and into the realms of "custom builds" ( Please ring ICE
for details).

And at the end of all that -- it is just not a convenient vehicle to use on
a daily basis.Enough to say that one needs special storage facilities at
home. My own touring experince has shown me that the ability to be able to
get off my bike and "hump it" over or around some obstacle/hazard and to be
able to climb on board a train at times is paramount and in retropect I am
very glad that, as a cycle camping tourer that I bought my Rholoff geared
work horse.

I am quite sure that you can go for multi geared option as Tome suggests but
at what costs!. The basic Rohloff hug is some £700. I suspect that in
whatever model of trike recumbent one is effectlive talking in terms of
£4500 on the road and rideable!

That places it in a very expensive price bracket which few, run of the mill,
every day cyclists would be willing to afford for a very specialised
machine.which certainly will not go "everywhere"

--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:13:40 +0000, Marc > wrote:
> On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
> > In >,
> > Just zis Guy, you > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
> >>> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an
> >>> upright, I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not
> >>> so easy. And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be
> >>> VERY tricky. But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear
> >>> (and, for the flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
> >>
> >> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
> >> bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
> >
> > That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
> > is range. How do they manage that?
>
> Triple, Rohlhoff and rear block?

Don't even need a Rohloff: triple, nine speed block block, three speed
hub: 3 x 9 x 3 = 81

I have ridden one so configured, I didn't buy one so configured.

A lot of finely spaced gears is not quite so silly as it sounds - I
change gear more often on a recumbent than on an upright, which
suggests that I find myself less tolerant of gear ratio, which in turn
suggests that more more closely spaced gears will be more useful on a
recumbent than an upright.

Having said which, my Trice has 'only' 27 gears. (triple and nine
speed).

With regards to the original question:

You can spread your chainrings more and have smaller overlaps on a
recumbent which has a long chain. Small:small and big:big are not
such a problem when the chain has three times the length to take up
the displacement.

The limit becomes what the derailleur can wrap, and mine goes from
almost pulled straight to wrapped right back and the chain hanging a
bit slack. Again, a very long chain seems more tolerant of this. In
principle you could put an intermediate chain tensioner too, but
you'll still be limited on the spread of chainrings by the side of the
front cage.

I find the limit on hill-climbing is simply traction. In bottom gear
I can wheelspin the back wheel, especially if there's sand or gravel
(or wet leaves) on the road. I've rarely encountered that on an
actual road, except when towing a child trailer. It's happened to me
a couple of times on steep country lanes, rarely trafficked and
therefore gritty / leafy when I've got a child trailer on the back.

If it's a long hard hill and I do need a rest, it is feasible to stop
and have a breather. Alternatively, you can go as slow as you like
and not fall over.

If you have to get off, don't push. Turn the trike round, lift the
rear wheel off the ground by lifting the rear carrier and tow it along
behind you. If you've got panniers on you can take one off and sit it
on the seat while you do this. It's not as easy as wheeling an
upright, but at least you're walking upright (not in a crouch). If
you find yourself doing this a lot you might want a bit of string to
lock the steering straight (otherwise, because the castering is
backwards, after a while you find it's swung round and is more
sideways than behind you).

The other issue with touring is luggage space - remember you'll only
have one rear rack (no front panniers, no bar-bag). It can be solved,
and there are some luggage sets that get four panniers on the rear
rack and back edge of the seat, but it needs more thought than on an
upright.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Ian Smith > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:13:40 +0000, Marc > wrote:
>> On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>> > In >,
>> > Just zis Guy, you > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
>> >>> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an
>> >>> upright, I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not
>> >>> so easy. And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be
>> >>> VERY tricky. But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear
>> >>> (and, for the flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>> >>
>> >> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>> >> bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>> >
>> > That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>> > is range. How do they manage that?
>>
>> Triple, Rohlhoff and rear block?
>
>Don't even need a Rohloff: triple, nine speed block block, three speed
>hub: 3 x 9 x 3 = 81
>
>I have ridden one so configured, I didn't buy one so configured.

Unfortunately, that has most of the range in the derailleur, so
stopping in the wrong gear means an engineering operation and
getting your hands oily. Someone else mentioned a Schlumpf plus
a Rohloff, which would be seriously expensive, but would resolve
that (and the other problems of such a complicated scheme).

>A lot of finely spaced gears is not quite so silly as it sounds - I
>change gear more often on a recumbent than on an upright, which
>suggests that I find myself less tolerant of gear ratio, which in turn
>suggests that more more closely spaced gears will be more useful on a
>recumbent than an upright.

Yes - I was allowing for that. As almost all upright cyclists are
happy with ratios of 1.25, the 1.13 ratio of 20 gears in a total
ratio of 10:1 is overkill. I know that many, er, 'dedicated'
cyclists say that they are completely inflexible, but very few
cyclists are so limited and the scientific research I have seen
does not support them.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[JMS]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:06:45 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:13:40 +0000, Marc > wrote:
>> On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>> > In >,
>> > Just zis Guy, you > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have been calculating what I would need for a recumbent for
>> >>> touring, and have hit a problem. With a steep hill and an
>> >>> upright, I can easily get off and push, but recumbents are not
>> >>> so easy. And if it were a fully-faired tricycle, it would be
>> >>> VERY tricky. But, to pedal up a 1:5 hill, I need a 10" gear
>> >>> (and, for the flat etc. a 100" gear). That's a heck of a range.
>> >>
>> >> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>> >> bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>> >
>> > That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>> > is range. How do they manage that?
>>
>> Triple, Rohlhoff and rear block?
>
>Don't even need a Rohloff: triple, nine speed block block, three speed
>hub: 3 x 9 x 3 = 81
>
>I have ridden one so configured, I didn't buy one so configured.
>
>A lot of finely spaced gears is not quite so silly as it sounds - I
>change gear more often on a recumbent than on an upright, which
>suggests that I find myself less tolerant of gear ratio, which in turn
>suggests that more more closely spaced gears will be more useful on a
>recumbent than an upright.
>
>Having said which, my Trice has 'only' 27 gears. (triple and nine
>speed).
>
>With regards to the original question:
>
>You can spread your chainrings more and have smaller overlaps on a
>recumbent which has a long chain. Small:small and big:big are not
>such a problem when the chain has three times the length to take up
>the displacement.
>
>The limit becomes what the derailleur can wrap, and mine goes from
>almost pulled straight to wrapped right back and the chain hanging a
>bit slack. Again, a very long chain seems more tolerant of this. In
>principle you could put an intermediate chain tensioner too, but
>you'll still be limited on the spread of chainrings by the side of the
>front cage.
>
>I find the limit on hill-climbing is simply traction. In bottom gear
>I can wheelspin the back wheel, especially if there's sand or gravel
>(or wet leaves) on the road. I've rarely encountered that on an
>actual road, except when towing a child trailer. It's happened to me
>a couple of times on steep country lanes, rarely trafficked and
>therefore gritty / leafy when I've got a child trailer on the back.
>
>If it's a long hard hill and I do need a rest, it is feasible to stop
>and have a breather. Alternatively, you can go as slow as you like
>and not fall over.
>
>If you have to get off, don't push. Turn the trike round, lift the
>rear wheel off the ground by lifting the rear carrier and tow it along
>behind you. If you've got panniers on you can take one off and sit it
>on the seat while you do this. It's not as easy as wheeling an
>upright, but at least you're walking upright (not in a crouch). If
>you find yourself doing this a lot you might want a bit of string to
>lock the steering straight (otherwise, because the castering is
>backwards, after a while you find it's swung round and is more
>sideways than behind you).
>
>The other issue with touring is luggage space - remember you'll only
>have one rear rack (no front panniers, no bar-bag). It can be solved,
>and there are some luggage sets that get four panniers on the rear
>rack and back edge of the seat, but it needs more thought than on an
>upright.
>
>regards, Ian SMith




ffs - form an orderly queue for pushbikes with 81 gears!!


You could not make it up.



--
DfT: Year ending June 2010:

Pedestrian casualties down 3%
Car casualties down 3%
Motorcycle casualties down 6%
Motorcyclists KSI down 6%
Car users KSI down 9%
Pedestrians KSI down 8%

Oh - hang on - there are some missing :

Cyclist casualties up 4%
Cyclist KSI up 1%

[[email protected]]

In article >,
JMS > wrote:
>
>ffs - form an orderly queue for pushbikes with 81 gears!!

Oh, Judith, you are such a little ray of light! Have you ever
met Angus? You would get on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:05:30 -0000, "Trevor A Panther"
> wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:24:43 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>>>>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>>>>> >bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>>>> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>>>> is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
>>>> double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>>For loaded touring in hilly country, more gears is good. 20 is not
>>>"gross overkill" if you're trying to keep in your happy band of rpm.
>>>
>>>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive. How many does that give you?
>>>8 x 2 x 3 x 2. Never at a loss for one in that little lot :-)
>>
>> How much variation is there in the gearing? I expect a great many
>> gears are redundant.
>>
>> I can understand the merits of using a 250% Schlumpf with a 526%
>> Rohloff, giving 1312% gear range, but even then 7 gears are redundant:
>>
>> Schlumpf - Rohloff gear ratios (Rohloff gear 11 is direct drive)
>> Gear 1 - 1 : 0.28
>> Gear 1 - 2 : 0.32
>> Gear 1 - 3 : 0.36
>> Gear 1 - 4 : 0.41
>> Gear 1 - 5 : 0.47
>> Gear 1 - 6 : 0.53
>> Gear 1 - 7 : 0.60
>> Gear 1 - 8 : 0.68
>> Gear 1 - 9 : 0.77
>> Gear 1 - 10 : 0.88
>> Gear 1 - 11 : 1.00
>> Gear 1 - 12 : 1.14
>> Gear 1 - 13 : 1.29
>> Gear 1 - 14 : 1.47
>> Gear 2 - 1 : 0.70
>> Gear 2 - 2 : 0.79
>> Gear 2 - 3 : 0.90
>> Gear 2 - 4 : 1.02
>> Gear 2 - 5 : 1.16
>> Gear 2 - 6 : 1.32
>> Gear 2 - 7 : 1.50
>> Gear 2 - 8 : 1.71
>> Gear 2 - 9 : 1.94
>> Gear 2 - 10 : 2.20
>> Gear 2 - 11 : 2.50
>> Gear 2 - 12 : 2.84
>> Gear 2 - 13 : 3.23
>> Gear 2 - 14 : 3.67
>>
>You can of course produce very low gearing with money.
>
>My "none" experience was that the cost of the basic trike (listed at about
>£1700 then) -- on the road with fairings, lights computer, pannier racks
>etc was of the order of £3000 + . And this was buying the "producton model"
>of ICE without any frills. It was the case then that ICE would not fit any
>"extras" other than am optiional lower gearing with a different cassette --
>but it was a 3 x 9 deraileur system.
>
>If you were wanting anything else the prices rose immeasureable and you were
>then in the world of custom built trikes which were certainly out of my
>price range
>
>I have just looked at the ICE site for the first time since 2006 and the
>models are different now but I remember that I was buying a their QNT (
>narrow track version of their touring trike) which was supposed to be
>"foldable" -- I would prefer to call it "dismantleable"). It came in kit
>form and it was necessary to build it myself!
>
>Their pricing policy has not basically changed.
>
>On their website the "Sprint" modle is listed at £!900 but that is a
>totally false price since to actually tour with their "touriong trike" and
>use it on the road -- well you need "upgrades"
>
>I just went throught the process of seleting to various "upgrades" to make
>it roadable and the price comes up to £3012! and that is without a
>fairing -- and I would definitely not use a recumbent on road -- in all
>weathers without one. I can't see the cost of a fairing shown on their site
>but i bet that if one is available from ICE it will put the price up by
>another £500..
>
>
>But I suspect that such an addition takes one away from their "standard
>production" models and into the realms of "custom builds" ( Please ring ICE
>for details).
>
>And at the end of all that -- it is just not a convenient vehicle to use on
>a daily basis.Enough to say that one needs special storage facilities at
>home. My own touring experince has shown me that the ability to be able to
>get off my bike and "hump it" over or around some obstacle/hazard and to be
>able to climb on board a train at times is paramount and in retropect I am
>very glad that, as a cycle camping tourer that I bought my Rholoff geared
>work horse.
>
>I am quite sure that you can go for multi geared option as Tome suggests but
>at what costs!. The basic Rohloff hug is some £700. I suspect that in
>whatever model of trike recumbent one is effectlive talking in terms of
>£4500 on the road and rideable!
>
>That places it in a very expensive price bracket which few, run of the mill,
>every day cyclists would be willing to afford for a very specialised
>machine.which certainly will not go "everywhere"

I tend to agree with you, but you leave one element out of the
equation.

Fun!

I have ridden a Trice - just once, but it was immense fun.

Don't get me wrong, Trevor. I too have a Thorn Raven, and it too is my
workhorse, and I doubt a Trice could ever replace it in that respect;
but while a two week holiday at a reasonable hotel in a resort
guaranteed (nearly) of sun can cost £2,000+, a trice costing as much
as £4,000 can give dozens of weeks of pleasure. It now looks like
remarkable value.

The newest addition to my ever growing family of bicycles is my Thorn
Raven Twin. At £3,500 I consider it excellent value for money as it
gives us so much pleasure.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/thorn/tandem

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:55:51 +0000, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:24:43 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 12/11/2010 23:10, wrote:
>>>> I have seen trikes with over 80 gears. You can't fall over so you just
>>>> >bung on an uber-granny gear and twiddle.
>>> That sounds silly. Even 20 gears is gross overkill; what is needed
>>> is range. How do they manage that? I assume that it involves
>>> double-change derailleurs, which is a real pain, but that's another
>>> issue.
>>
>>For loaded touring in hilly country, more gears is good. 20 is not
>>"gross overkill" if you're trying to keep in your happy band of rpm.
>>
>>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive. How many does that give you?
>>8 x 2 x 3 x 2. Never at a loss for one in that little lot :-)

I have just found this excellent gear calculator:
http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml

The calculator will handle a speedhub, quadruple chainring, a ten gear
cassette, and a Rohloff.
2 x 4 x 10 x 14 = a possible 1120 gears, though, unfortunately, the
calculator won't handle a speedhub and multiple chainring, or hub
gears and derailleur.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
>I have just found this excellent gear calculator:
>http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml
>
>The calculator will handle a speedhub, quadruple chainring, a ten gear
>cassette, and a Rohloff.
>2 x 4 x 10 x 14 = a possible 1120 gears, though, unfortunately, the
>calculator won't handle a speedhub and multiple chainring, or hub
>gears and derailleur.

We are not all arithmetically challenged. Calculating the gear
ratios is not a problem for anyone who isn't - the real problems
are all in the engineering.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:47:05 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

>In article >,
>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>
>>I have just found this excellent gear calculator:
>>http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml
>>
>>The calculator will handle a speedhub, quadruple chainring, a ten gear
>>cassette, and a Rohloff.
>>2 x 4 x 10 x 14 = a possible 1120 gears, though, unfortunately, the
>>calculator won't handle a speedhub and multiple chainring, or hub
>>gears and derailleur.
>
>We are not all arithmetically challenged. Calculating the gear
>ratios is not a problem for anyone who isn't - the real problems
>are all in the engineering.

Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
four shifters slightly awkward.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Tom Crispin > wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:47:05 +0000 (GMT), wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>
>>>I have just found this excellent gear calculator:
>>>http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml
>>>
>>>The calculator will handle a speedhub, quadruple chainring, a ten gear
>>>cassette, and a Rohloff.
>>>2 x 4 x 10 x 14 = a possible 1120 gears, though, unfortunately, the
>>>calculator won't handle a speedhub and multiple chainring, or hub
>>>gears and derailleur.
>>
>>We are not all arithmetically challenged. Calculating the gear
>>ratios is not a problem for anyone who isn't - the real problems
>>are all in the engineering.
>
>Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
>laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
>four shifters slightly awkward.

Firstly, why bother? You can extract all of the relevant information
without that hassle, by just applying a bit of intelligence.

Secondly, we are not all computationally challenged. There are much
easier ways to use a computer to do it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:03:44 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

>In article >,
>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:47:05 +0000 (GMT), wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I have just found this excellent gear calculator:
>>>>http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml
>>>>
>>>>The calculator will handle a speedhub, quadruple chainring, a ten gear
>>>>cassette, and a Rohloff.
>>>>2 x 4 x 10 x 14 = a possible 1120 gears, though, unfortunately, the
>>>>calculator won't handle a speedhub and multiple chainring, or hub
>>>>gears and derailleur.
>>>
>>>We are not all arithmetically challenged. Calculating the gear
>>>ratios is not a problem for anyone who isn't - the real problems
>>>are all in the engineering.
>>
>>Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
>>laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
>>four shifters slightly awkward.
>
>Firstly, why bother? You can extract all of the relevant information
>without that hassle, by just applying a bit of intelligence.
>
>Secondly, we are not all computationally challenged. There are much
>easier ways to use a computer to do it.

OK, then, answer my question to Guy.

How much variation in the gearing will there be in the 8 x 2 x 3 x 2
Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive Guy suggests?

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, > wrote:
> In article >,
> Ian Smith > wrote:

[of 81 gears]
> >Don't even need a Rohloff: triple, nine speed block block, three
> >speed hub: 3 x 9 x 3 = 81
> >
> >I have ridden one so configured, I didn't buy one so configured.
>
> Unfortunately, that has most of the range in the derailleur, so
> stopping in the wrong gear means an engineering operation and
> getting your hands oily. Someone else mentioned a Schlumpf plus
> a Rohloff, which would be seriously expensive, but would resolve
> that (and the other problems of such a complicated scheme).

Yes, but the ability to change gear when stopped was not amongst your
concerns. It's not something that concerns me - I change gear before
stopping.

> >A lot of finely spaced gears is not quite so silly as it sounds - I
> >change gear more often on a recumbent than on an upright, which
> >suggests that I find myself less tolerant of gear ratio, which in
> >turn suggests that more more closely spaced gears will be more
> >useful on a recumbent than an upright.
>
> Yes - I was allowing for that. As almost all upright cyclists are
> happy with ratios of 1.25, the 1.13 ratio of 20 gears in a total
> ratio of 10:1 is overkill. I know that many, er, 'dedicated'
> cyclists say that they are completely inflexible, but very few
> cyclists are so limited and the scientific research I have seen
> does not support them.

I spin out on my trike fairly often - it doesn't take a particularly
abnormal hill to do so, probably about 30mph. The limit uphill is
traction of the tyre, but note that that is lost on a less steep hill
than an upright (though if the hill is long and less than the traction
limit I can get up hills on the trike I don't get up on a bike, though
slowly).

My trike has a 20" rear wheel, so it's relatively easy to bias it to
smaller gears.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Phil W Lee > wrote:
>>
>>Unfortunately, that has most of the range in the derailleur, so
>>stopping in the wrong gear means an engineering operation and
>>getting your hands oily.
>
>Why on earth would you need to change it by hand?
>Just change a couple of gears at a time, lifting the rear wheel to
>spin the pedal in between. No oily hands or engineering operation
>required.

In my experience and that of a lot of other people, trying to do
that in a hurry is a good way to have the chain come off - which
is back to the oily hands! And few people can hold up 30 Kg for
long (which is what is involved for a fully-faired recumbent,
laden for touring). I have no difficulty holding that, but I
DO have balancing while doing so.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
>>>laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
>>>four shifters slightly awkward.
>>
>>Firstly, why bother? You can extract all of the relevant information
>>without that hassle, by just applying a bit of intelligence.
>>
>>Secondly, we are not all computationally challenged. There are much
>>easier ways to use a computer to do it.
>
>OK, then, answer my question to Guy.
>
>How much variation in the gearing will there be in the 8 x 2 x 3 x 2
>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive Guy suggests?

Tell me the individual variations, and I will multiply them for
you. Alternatively, please tell me how you would use a spreadsheet
to locate that information!

Sheesh. Simple multiplication like that is something that people
of my age were taught to do in our heads, and some of us still
can, though I have more problem remembering intermediate results
than I did 40+ years ago.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
Ian Smith > wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, that has most of the range in the derailleur, so
>> stopping in the wrong gear means an engineering operation and
>> getting your hands oily. Someone else mentioned a Schlumpf plus
>> a Rohloff, which would be seriously expensive, but would resolve
>> that (and the other problems of such a complicated scheme).
>
>Yes, but the ability to change gear when stopped was not amongst your
>concerns. It's not something that concerns me - I change gear before
>stopping.

I was posting to a newsgroup, not writing a procurement document!
There are other concerns I didn't mention, too.

And the issue is emergency stops and simple forgetfulness. I have
seen derailleur users ride very dangerously when an emergency stop
was indicated, specifically so they could change down, but I am
not prepared to emulate them.

Still, I can't see an alternative for 1:5 hills. If such a machine
were towable, a Schlumpf and 3:1 hub gear would be fine, but that
would mean pushing 40 Kg at a cadence of 30 to get up a 1:5 hill.
I can do that on an upright, but doubt my ability on a recumbent.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:26:42 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

>In article >,
>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
>>>>laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
>>>>four shifters slightly awkward.
>>>
>>>Firstly, why bother? You can extract all of the relevant information
>>>without that hassle, by just applying a bit of intelligence.
>>>
>>>Secondly, we are not all computationally challenged. There are much
>>>easier ways to use a computer to do it.
>>
>>OK, then, answer my question to Guy.
>>
>>How much variation in the gearing will there be in the 8 x 2 x 3 x 2
>>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive Guy suggests?
>
>Tell me the individual variations, and I will multiply them for
>you. Alternatively, please tell me how you would use a spreadsheet
>to locate that information!
>
>Sheesh. Simple multiplication like that is something that people
>of my age were taught to do in our heads, and some of us still
>can, though I have more problem remembering intermediate results
>than I did 40+ years ago.

Schlumpf is 1:2.5 it comes with 27t ring but a 34t ring can be added.
The dual drive is standard.

Yes, I know the arithmetic is trivial, but as I say, laborious. Anyway
- I want to know how much variation there is in the gearing, i.e. how
much overlap between the gears. So how many effective gears.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:53:04 +0000, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:26:42 +0000 (GMT), wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but calculating 1120 gear ratios on a calculator would be
>>>>>laborious and even setting up a spreadsheet to do the calculations for
>>>>>four shifters slightly awkward.
>>>>
>>>>Firstly, why bother? You can extract all of the relevant information
>>>>without that hassle, by just applying a bit of intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>Secondly, we are not all computationally challenged. There are much
>>>>easier ways to use a computer to do it.
>>>
>>>OK, then, answer my question to Guy.
>>>
>>>How much variation in the gearing will there be in the 8 x 2 x 3 x 2
>>>Schlumpf + double rings + Sram dual-drive Guy suggests?
>>
>>Tell me the individual variations, and I will multiply them for
>>you. Alternatively, please tell me how you would use a spreadsheet
>>to locate that information!
>>
>>Sheesh. Simple multiplication like that is something that people
>>of my age were taught to do in our heads, and some of us still
>>can, though I have more problem remembering intermediate results
>>than I did 40+ years ago.
>
>Schlumpf is 1:2.5 it comes with 27t ring but a 34t ring can be added.
>The dual drive is standard.
>
>Yes, I know the arithmetic is trivial, but as I say, laborious. Anyway
>- I want to know how much variation there is in the gearing, i.e. how
>much overlap between the gears. So how many effective gears.

I see you are still having difficulty answering the question, so I
will spoon feed the numbers to you to crunch away.

Schlumpf - 1:2.5
Chainring - 27/34t
Dual drive - 11-34; 0.74:1:1.36

How many effective gears are there?