Re: recumbent frustration

[Cletus Lee]

In article >, says...
> I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul. It was a great ride,
> but it was frustrating in the sense that I could not keep up with my
> friend who owns a Bianchi upright.
Oh my! Where to start?

Theory 1:
I would think that 1600 mi would condition you to recumbents. Maybe it was 1600 miles too soon
and too fast. Your body has to develop the bent muscles to be effective. Maybe 400 miles in a
month with suficient time for rest and recovery in between rides would be enough. So, it could
just be the 1600 miles all at once and at the front of your bent training.

Theory 2:
Does this Phantom have a 16" front wheel? I started my P-38 with a 16" wheel and was
dissappointed since it was not any faster than my then year old LWB RANS Stratus. Still I was
faster on either recumbent than on a DF by about 2 mph. My 16"fork gave me problems. If it had
it tight enough to hold the wheel on, then the fork squeezed the cones and increased friction
on the front wheel. Could that be a problem? How freely does the front wheel spin?
After I switched to a 406 front wheel and fork, my speed improved too.

Theory 3:
What was your cadence? You really have to learn to spin on a recumbent. If you are a 'Masher'
by nature (I am) you will blow the knees quickly. In addition to spinning, you need to fine
tune the seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference. What kind of
pedal retention system doe you use? I use Eggbeaters and recommend them Other like Speedplay
frogs. Before the Eggbeaters, I used SPDs. With the SPDs, foot position is critical to a pain
free knee. When I switched to the Eggbeaters, I had two weeks of knee pain. It healed, my knees
adjusted to the new pedals and I have been pain free since (A daily dose of Glucosamine helps
too.)

Theory 4:
Look for wear on the drive side idler Some wear the rubber 'O' ring and notch the inside of
pulley. I have replaced mine 4 times since I got it. Do you have a 'Quick Size kit'
installed? The more convoluted the chain, the less efficient it is.

Theory 5:
Tires. Wider tires don't help. Primos might be OK for rolling resistance but only if they are
narrow. 37mm tires will hurt more than help. City Jets might not be as speedy as Primos.
Something else to consider.

It took me 6 months before I was fast and comfortable on a LWB RANS Stratus. With in the first
month I was fast on the LWB than any DF I had previously. Plus I could ride 40 miles instead of
15 without stopping to rest my butt. My Lightning P-38 took me two years before I was really
fast. That did not happen until I started practicing spinning. Drop a gear down and add 15-20
revs to the cadence.


> The first 2 days were fine, but by
> about the third day, my knees were killing me. I think I had my seat
> to far forward so I moved the seat back. That fixed that problem, but
> then I found that my legs tired much quicker on the recumbent than my
> friends on the upright. I knew my friend would be faster on the
> hills, but towards the end of the ride which was fairly flat, I could
> only maintain average speeds of around 15mph while my friend was
> maintaining averages of 17-19. When we both had uprights, we easily
> maintained averages of 18-19 and if we drafted off one another, we
> could maintain 20-21 averages. After this experience, I feel like
> going back to an upright. Is what I experienced typical of first-time
> recumbent experiences? Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an
> upright. I'm thinking of trading in the Phantom for a Strada and
> doing one more ride with my upright friend, and if I can't keep up on
> the Strada, I think I'll probably return to an upright. Recumbents
> seem less efficient to me with longer chain and heavier frames. When
> I was able to keep up with my upright friend, I had to work much
> harder and could only maintain it for 5-7 miles.

Even with longer chain and heavier bike, recumbents are well established (by me every Saturday)
as being faster than DFs. Remember above 15 mph, (IIRC) over 80% of the energy spent is
overcoming wind resistance. Recently this composite picture was posted. It illustrates quite
well the aerodynamic benefits of a recumbent. Your closed seat position Phantom will fit
somewhere between the Big Wheel bent and the AeroBar DF.

http://www.hostelshoppe.com/images/tech/df_vs_volae.jpg
--

Cletus D. Lee
Bacchetta Giro
Lightning Voyager
http://www.clee.org
- Bellaire, TX USA -

[Gary Fritz]

Cletus Lee > wrote:
> In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.

This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
is moving 1-2" all the time??

Gary

[Gary Fritz]

Cletus Lee > wrote:
> In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.

This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
is moving 1-2" all the time??

Gary

[Jerry Rhodes]

(johlde) wrote in message >...
> I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul.

Sounds like Too Much, Too Soon.

It takes as long to get your "bent" muscles and nerve synapses working
for top performance as it did to get your "unbent" muscles and nerves
working together.

I am just now beginning to approach my times on my Trek 1500 after 2.5
years on the Barcroft Dakota and now a GRR. I am still improving with
each passing week.

160 ten mile rides will probably yield more improvement than one 1600
mile ride.
Nerve/muscle coordination is learned slowly. After a ten mile ride
your brain is still sorting what just happened for hours afterward.
If those rides are 24 to 48 hours apart you have spent about 6 or 7
months internalizing your "bent" nerve/muscle activity and the act of
riding becomes more automatic, just as it was on the DF.

160 sixteen hundred mile rides should make you AWESOME!!!!!! ;-)

Jerry

[Jerry Rhodes]

(johlde) wrote in message >...
> I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul.

Sounds like Too Much, Too Soon.

It takes as long to get your "bent" muscles and nerve synapses working
for top performance as it did to get your "unbent" muscles and nerves
working together.

I am just now beginning to approach my times on my Trek 1500 after 2.5
years on the Barcroft Dakota and now a GRR. I am still improving with
each passing week.

160 ten mile rides will probably yield more improvement than one 1600
mile ride.
Nerve/muscle coordination is learned slowly. After a ten mile ride
your brain is still sorting what just happened for hours afterward.
If those rides are 24 to 48 hours apart you have spent about 6 or 7
months internalizing your "bent" nerve/muscle activity and the act of
riding becomes more automatic, just as it was on the DF.

160 sixteen hundred mile rides should make you AWESOME!!!!!! ;-)

Jerry

[Don]

Patience pilgrim. How many miles did you have on the Phantom before
you started your tour? Also do a search of crank length. Your crank
needs on the Phantom may be different from the Bianchi. What tires are
you using?

I sense too much impatience. You talk about getting a Strada (yes, it
will be faster than the Phantom) and doing one more ride with your
friend. If you can't keep up then good by bents. It takes a little
longer than that. If you want to suffer go back to DFs. If you want
to make your friend suffer then stick with a good bent long enough to
develop the muscles and technique.

I know it is frustrating when you can not keep up with people you want
to ride with. I know that one very well. But that may indeed be the
case--temporarily. You can work through it.

Don't give up. Good luck,

Don (Does not the butterfly fly with the wind?)

[Don]

Patience pilgrim. How many miles did you have on the Phantom before
you started your tour? Also do a search of crank length. Your crank
needs on the Phantom may be different from the Bianchi. What tires are
you using?

I sense too much impatience. You talk about getting a Strada (yes, it
will be faster than the Phantom) and doing one more ride with your
friend. If you can't keep up then good by bents. It takes a little
longer than that. If you want to suffer go back to DFs. If you want
to make your friend suffer then stick with a good bent long enough to
develop the muscles and technique.

I know it is frustrating when you can not keep up with people you want
to ride with. I know that one very well. But that may indeed be the
case--temporarily. You can work through it.

Don't give up. Good luck,

Don (Does not the butterfly fly with the wind?)

[baronn1]

If you buy that Strada, and give up, I'll take it off your hands... ;-)

"Don" > wrote in message
om...
> Patience pilgrim. How many miles did you have on the Phantom before
> you started your tour? Also do a search of crank length. Your crank
> needs on the Phantom may be different from the Bianchi. What tires are
> you using?
>
> I sense too much impatience. You talk about getting a Strada (yes, it
> will be faster than the Phantom) and doing one more ride with your
> friend. If you can't keep up then good by bents. It takes a little
> longer than that. If you want to suffer go back to DFs. If you want
> to make your friend suffer then stick with a good bent long enough to
> develop the muscles and technique.
>
> I know it is frustrating when you can not keep up with people you want
> to ride with. I know that one very well. But that may indeed be the
> case--temporarily. You can work through it.
>
> Don't give up. Good luck,
>
> Don (Does not the butterfly fly with the wind?)

[baronn1]

If you buy that Strada, and give up, I'll take it off your hands... ;-)

"Don" > wrote in message
om...
> Patience pilgrim. How many miles did you have on the Phantom before
> you started your tour? Also do a search of crank length. Your crank
> needs on the Phantom may be different from the Bianchi. What tires are
> you using?
>
> I sense too much impatience. You talk about getting a Strada (yes, it
> will be faster than the Phantom) and doing one more ride with your
> friend. If you can't keep up then good by bents. It takes a little
> longer than that. If you want to suffer go back to DFs. If you want
> to make your friend suffer then stick with a good bent long enough to
> develop the muscles and technique.
>
> I know it is frustrating when you can not keep up with people you want
> to ride with. I know that one very well. But that may indeed be the
> case--temporarily. You can work through it.
>
> Don't give up. Good luck,
>
> Don (Does not the butterfly fly with the wind?)

[Victor Kan]

Victor Kan wrote:
> Anyway, here's a long reply
> that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post :-).

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I was making fun of my own post being
only tangetially related to the original post, not what others have
written, all of which pretty much has been directly related to the
original post.


--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Victor Kan]

Victor Kan wrote:
> Anyway, here's a long reply
> that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post :-).

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I was making fun of my own post being
only tangetially related to the original post, not what others have
written, all of which pretty much has been directly related to the
original post.


--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Seth Jayson]

Many things can keep you from being faster.
Probably the biggest factor would be your conditioning. How long did
you train on the bent before starting that big tour? If it was less
than two weeks, that would explain a lot of your frustration. And I
know very few folks who will get faster during a thousand mile tour.

I've never ridden a phantom, but I have a RANS rocket, and it's pretty
easy for me to keep that bike at a 17-19mph clip, especially with
another rider to draft. (Yes, you can draft with uprights and they can
draft off you.)

A strada will almost certainly be a faster bike, but it sounds to me
like the problem isn't the bike.

[Seth Jayson]

Many things can keep you from being faster.
Probably the biggest factor would be your conditioning. How long did
you train on the bent before starting that big tour? If it was less
than two weeks, that would explain a lot of your frustration. And I
know very few folks who will get faster during a thousand mile tour.

I've never ridden a phantom, but I have a RANS rocket, and it's pretty
easy for me to keep that bike at a 17-19mph clip, especially with
another rider to draft. (Yes, you can draft with uprights and they can
draft off you.)

A strada will almost certainly be a faster bike, but it sounds to me
like the problem isn't the bike.

[Scott]

Gary,

My V-Rex did the same thing. If you call RANS they will send you a
shim for your seat free of charge that will help keep the seat from
moving. It worked for me.

Scott.

Gary Fritz > wrote in message >...
> Cletus Lee > wrote:
> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>
> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
> is moving 1-2" all the time??
>
> Gary

[Scott]

Gary,

My V-Rex did the same thing. If you call RANS they will send you a
shim for your seat free of charge that will help keep the seat from
moving. It worked for me.

Scott.

Gary Fritz > wrote in message >...
> Cletus Lee > wrote:
> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>
> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
> is moving 1-2" all the time??
>
> Gary

[Eddie H]

My experience is opposite from yours, though I'm not responding in
order to preach about recumbents. Whether you had enough development
time or not, 1600 miles should have shown a difference from your
Bianchi days. That's a real bummer. I hope the next bent draws more
positive results for you. It's a tribute to your own perseverance that
you haven't dismissed recumbents altogether. It really is a different,
and improved (in my opinion), biking experience from a Bianchi or any
cafe racer, but that impression is only relevant if it is yours and
not mine.

[Eddie H]

My experience is opposite from yours, though I'm not responding in
order to preach about recumbents. Whether you had enough development
time or not, 1600 miles should have shown a difference from your
Bianchi days. That's a real bummer. I hope the next bent draws more
positive results for you. It's a tribute to your own perseverance that
you haven't dismissed recumbents altogether. It really is a different,
and improved (in my opinion), biking experience from a Bianchi or any
cafe racer, but that impression is only relevant if it is yours and
not mine.

[baronn1]

I stand corrected, I should have used the term "relatively" The Bianchi is
relatively expensive compared to the gamut of df bikes, but the Phantom is
relatively inexpensive for a recumbent.
However, I don't think your tangent actually is a tangent at all. How are
trikes, your experience with fit related to various df bikes, and advocating
owning both styles of bike related to the question posted, which was "Can I
expect similar speeds on my bent as compared to my df?"? I gave my opinions
on this question, while you went on a multi topic ramble, never answering
the question posted.

"Victor Kan" > wrote in message
. com...
> baronn1 wrote:
> > Typically, it takes many hundreds of miles to train your bent legs. And
you
> > are correct that thePahntom is much heavier, with a less efficient drive
> > train. So, you got off a fairly expensive, very light road bike, onto a
> > heavier bike that uses different muscles than what you've been
conditioning
> > these many years.I
>
> You should also describe the Phantom as a "fairly expensive" bike, being
> priced at $1450 with low end components. Anyway, here's a long reply
> that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post :-).
>
> My experience these past few months has been in the opposite direction
> of most folks in this newsgroup. Back in May, I purchased an upright
> bike, a Specialized Sequoia Sport road bike with various, alleged
> comfort features (some are really to make it easier to manufacture and
> stock fewer models to cover a wider range of potential buyers), like:
>
> - carbon fork with some shock absorbing elastomer embedded
> in the middle of each blade
> - suspension seat post
> - Body Geometry (tm) saddle with center channel cutaway and
> substantial, though firm, padding
> - anatomic handle bars and cushy tape
> - two sets of brake levers (the usual Shimano dual-control
> brake+shifter levers, plus MTB style levers on the flats
> - longer chain stays
> - adjustable stem
> - compact frame geometry, good for fitting to shorter riders
> - road triple crank
>
> For the most part, I'm loving it, confirming that my discomfort with my
> first "real bike", a Trek 2x6-speed road bike, was likely more due to
> bad sizing than anything else. It was a 56cm frame, and a little to big
> for me, while the Specialized is a "compact" frame in the medium size,
> which is supposedly the equivalent of a 54cm.
>
> That's not to say that I don't also love my recumbent (a Wicks Trimuter
> tadpole trike, and before that, a Linear Mach III, which I gave to my
> cousin since I stopped riding it once I got the trike). I do love it.
> But I have different goals for the two HPVs.
>
> A few years ago, I gave up cycling because of pain, from pretty much all
> over--back, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, butt, 'nads, you name it, it
> hurt. Then a few months later I got the bug again and decided to "do it
> right" and get properly sized for a bike. Then I heard about recumbents
> and figured I'd try something completely different instead.
>
> After trying a few bikes at Larry Black's annual Bent Event in Mt. Airy,
> MD, I fell in love with the Linear Mach III CLWB. When I got it home, I
> took it out on my usual bike commuting route, 10 miles of rolling hills
> in both directions. I was able to do it at pretty much the same average
> speed, maybe one MPH less. I quickly got to the same average.
>
> Then I tried a local triker's Greenspeed GTR, fell in love with that
> ("gotta get me one of those!" was my reaction after about five seconds
> on the thing), and got a Wicks Trimuter clone of the GTS. Switching
> from the ~30 pound Mach III to the 50+ lb Trimuter (nominally 42 lbs
> stock, but I carry a bit too much stuff in the panniers, just because I
> can :-), I started out at the same average speed instantly, and even
> gained one MPH eventually.
>
> The trike is wonderful for "just riding" (don't think about tipping over
> into traffic, ignoring most minor road hazards, etc.). It's wonderful
> for pulling G's in fast turns. It's amazing if there's a long, steep
> downhill where I can reach a very stable 40+ mph with the SRAM 3x7 hub
> in overdrive. It's great for towing a trailer or carrying loads. But
> the darned thing is bulky and heavy. When I get it to work I have to do
> a hysterical ballet of sorts to open both doors just to get the thing
> through the portal.
>
> So I wanted to get a more petite, lighter HPV (couldn't get much heavier
> than the Trimuter+panniers_full_of_stuff if I tried) that I could go
> faster with, and move around more easily, that didn't take up so much
> floor space. In looking around at what's available, I figured I'd be
> happy only with something like a Windcheetah, Trice Micro (though I
> might not fit into one :-), a Catrike Speed, or on the bike front, a
> Reynolds T-Bone (gotta luv that USS!) or a Bacchetta Corsa (maybe a
> Giro) or a Volae Club (maybe a Tour).
>
> But the price tags were a bit on the high side, even for the lower end
> big+small wheel variants of the bikes. So I figured I'd go with my
> original plan of a few years ago and try an upright road bike that
> really fit me well.
>
> Well, the Sequoia Sport fit the bill. It's not a weight weenie kind of
> bike (I think it was like 25 or 26 pounds with all the gizmos). It fits
> me very well. The saddle pretty much works. I feel no butt pain (at
> least no different than recumbent butt), though I occasionally get a
> "nutcracker" kind of feeling that I hope to adjust away with some saddle
> realignment (yeah right! Dream on, I can hear everyone saying).
>
> And my hands do get numb if I keep them in the same position for a few
> miles, which is OK for my intended use of this bike, mainly for
> occasional short rides during the work day, or when I want to ride home
> on a day I drove into work, or where I rode the trike into work, but
> want to get home faster for some reason (like today where thunderstorms
> were threatening and I left work later than I should have).
>
> Yep, to get home faster. Short of having an all downhill route where
> the recumbent's aerodynamics easily win out over its weight and other
> inefficiency disadvantages, the upright road bike is significantly
> faster for me. I've been recumbent-only for years now, yet when I took
> my first rides on the upright, I was instantly at least 2 MPH faster
> over the same routes of rolling hills, no special training of "upright
> muscles" needed. Yes, my computers were calibrated right.
>
> I really did fly up hills vs. the trike. Some hills I'd have to work at
> to get up at reasonable speed on the trike I could almost coast up with
> the bike, and at higher speeds.
>
> Today I had special motivation with the thunder clouds blowing in and
> did a personal best on my commute route home, reaching 19.3 MPH average
> on the bike based on real clock time (I must have moved my wheel magnet
> when pumping the tires 'cuz the computer wasn't working properly
> tonight), whereas when I rode to work on the trike this morning, I eeked
> out a 15.1 MPH ride on the slightly easier route (about a mile longer,
> but fewer big hills) coming into work, based on auto-start ride time.
>
> Granted, I was really, really motivated to get home without being rained
> on--the last time I rode home in the rain on the Mach III, I was so
> "traumatized" that I didn't ride it for several months afterward.
>
> So what does all this rambling on mean?
>
> For me, and likely other folks, a relatively inexpensive, but properly
> fitting upright road bike is a good complement to a good recumbent that
> cost a heck of a lot more (about 3x in my case), weighs a lot more (2x
> in my case), with a less efficient chain line, but better aerodynamics
> and overall greater comfort.
>
> I've decided to platoon these two HPVs of mine. Ride one into work,
> ride the other one home. I think maintaining "recumbent muscles" along
> with "upright muscles" is working out well for me, improving my pedaling
> technique on both, and motivating me to ride more.
>
> Phew, that was a long post!
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
>

[baronn1]

I stand corrected, I should have used the term "relatively" The Bianchi is
relatively expensive compared to the gamut of df bikes, but the Phantom is
relatively inexpensive for a recumbent.
However, I don't think your tangent actually is a tangent at all. How are
trikes, your experience with fit related to various df bikes, and advocating
owning both styles of bike related to the question posted, which was "Can I
expect similar speeds on my bent as compared to my df?"? I gave my opinions
on this question, while you went on a multi topic ramble, never answering
the question posted.

"Victor Kan" > wrote in message
. com...
> baronn1 wrote:
> > Typically, it takes many hundreds of miles to train your bent legs. And
you
> > are correct that thePahntom is much heavier, with a less efficient drive
> > train. So, you got off a fairly expensive, very light road bike, onto a
> > heavier bike that uses different muscles than what you've been
conditioning
> > these many years.I
>
> You should also describe the Phantom as a "fairly expensive" bike, being
> priced at $1450 with low end components. Anyway, here's a long reply
> that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post :-).
>
> My experience these past few months has been in the opposite direction
> of most folks in this newsgroup. Back in May, I purchased an upright
> bike, a Specialized Sequoia Sport road bike with various, alleged
> comfort features (some are really to make it easier to manufacture and
> stock fewer models to cover a wider range of potential buyers), like:
>
> - carbon fork with some shock absorbing elastomer embedded
> in the middle of each blade
> - suspension seat post
> - Body Geometry (tm) saddle with center channel cutaway and
> substantial, though firm, padding
> - anatomic handle bars and cushy tape
> - two sets of brake levers (the usual Shimano dual-control
> brake+shifter levers, plus MTB style levers on the flats
> - longer chain stays
> - adjustable stem
> - compact frame geometry, good for fitting to shorter riders
> - road triple crank
>
> For the most part, I'm loving it, confirming that my discomfort with my
> first "real bike", a Trek 2x6-speed road bike, was likely more due to
> bad sizing than anything else. It was a 56cm frame, and a little to big
> for me, while the Specialized is a "compact" frame in the medium size,
> which is supposedly the equivalent of a 54cm.
>
> That's not to say that I don't also love my recumbent (a Wicks Trimuter
> tadpole trike, and before that, a Linear Mach III, which I gave to my
> cousin since I stopped riding it once I got the trike). I do love it.
> But I have different goals for the two HPVs.
>
> A few years ago, I gave up cycling because of pain, from pretty much all
> over--back, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, butt, 'nads, you name it, it
> hurt. Then a few months later I got the bug again and decided to "do it
> right" and get properly sized for a bike. Then I heard about recumbents
> and figured I'd try something completely different instead.
>
> After trying a few bikes at Larry Black's annual Bent Event in Mt. Airy,
> MD, I fell in love with the Linear Mach III CLWB. When I got it home, I
> took it out on my usual bike commuting route, 10 miles of rolling hills
> in both directions. I was able to do it at pretty much the same average
> speed, maybe one MPH less. I quickly got to the same average.
>
> Then I tried a local triker's Greenspeed GTR, fell in love with that
> ("gotta get me one of those!" was my reaction after about five seconds
> on the thing), and got a Wicks Trimuter clone of the GTS. Switching
> from the ~30 pound Mach III to the 50+ lb Trimuter (nominally 42 lbs
> stock, but I carry a bit too much stuff in the panniers, just because I
> can :-), I started out at the same average speed instantly, and even
> gained one MPH eventually.
>
> The trike is wonderful for "just riding" (don't think about tipping over
> into traffic, ignoring most minor road hazards, etc.). It's wonderful
> for pulling G's in fast turns. It's amazing if there's a long, steep
> downhill where I can reach a very stable 40+ mph with the SRAM 3x7 hub
> in overdrive. It's great for towing a trailer or carrying loads. But
> the darned thing is bulky and heavy. When I get it to work I have to do
> a hysterical ballet of sorts to open both doors just to get the thing
> through the portal.
>
> So I wanted to get a more petite, lighter HPV (couldn't get much heavier
> than the Trimuter+panniers_full_of_stuff if I tried) that I could go
> faster with, and move around more easily, that didn't take up so much
> floor space. In looking around at what's available, I figured I'd be
> happy only with something like a Windcheetah, Trice Micro (though I
> might not fit into one :-), a Catrike Speed, or on the bike front, a
> Reynolds T-Bone (gotta luv that USS!) or a Bacchetta Corsa (maybe a
> Giro) or a Volae Club (maybe a Tour).
>
> But the price tags were a bit on the high side, even for the lower end
> big+small wheel variants of the bikes. So I figured I'd go with my
> original plan of a few years ago and try an upright road bike that
> really fit me well.
>
> Well, the Sequoia Sport fit the bill. It's not a weight weenie kind of
> bike (I think it was like 25 or 26 pounds with all the gizmos). It fits
> me very well. The saddle pretty much works. I feel no butt pain (at
> least no different than recumbent butt), though I occasionally get a
> "nutcracker" kind of feeling that I hope to adjust away with some saddle
> realignment (yeah right! Dream on, I can hear everyone saying).
>
> And my hands do get numb if I keep them in the same position for a few
> miles, which is OK for my intended use of this bike, mainly for
> occasional short rides during the work day, or when I want to ride home
> on a day I drove into work, or where I rode the trike into work, but
> want to get home faster for some reason (like today where thunderstorms
> were threatening and I left work later than I should have).
>
> Yep, to get home faster. Short of having an all downhill route where
> the recumbent's aerodynamics easily win out over its weight and other
> inefficiency disadvantages, the upright road bike is significantly
> faster for me. I've been recumbent-only for years now, yet when I took
> my first rides on the upright, I was instantly at least 2 MPH faster
> over the same routes of rolling hills, no special training of "upright
> muscles" needed. Yes, my computers were calibrated right.
>
> I really did fly up hills vs. the trike. Some hills I'd have to work at
> to get up at reasonable speed on the trike I could almost coast up with
> the bike, and at higher speeds.
>
> Today I had special motivation with the thunder clouds blowing in and
> did a personal best on my commute route home, reaching 19.3 MPH average
> on the bike based on real clock time (I must have moved my wheel magnet
> when pumping the tires 'cuz the computer wasn't working properly
> tonight), whereas when I rode to work on the trike this morning, I eeked
> out a 15.1 MPH ride on the slightly easier route (about a mile longer,
> but fewer big hills) coming into work, based on auto-start ride time.
>
> Granted, I was really, really motivated to get home without being rained
> on--the last time I rode home in the rain on the Mach III, I was so
> "traumatized" that I didn't ride it for several months afterward.
>
> So what does all this rambling on mean?
>
> For me, and likely other folks, a relatively inexpensive, but properly
> fitting upright road bike is a good complement to a good recumbent that
> cost a heck of a lot more (about 3x in my case), weighs a lot more (2x
> in my case), with a less efficient chain line, but better aerodynamics
> and overall greater comfort.
>
> I've decided to platoon these two HPVs of mine. Ride one into work,
> ride the other one home. I think maintaining "recumbent muscles" along
> with "upright muscles" is working out well for me, improving my pedaling
> technique on both, and motivating me to ride more.
>
> Phew, that was a long post!
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
>

[baronn1]

OK, you got me...;-)

"Victor Kan" > wrote in message
. com...
> Victor Kan wrote:
> > Anyway, here's a long reply
> > that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post
:-).
>
> Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I was making fun of my own post being
> only tangetially related to the original post, not what others have
> written, all of which pretty much has been directly related to the
> original post.
>
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
>

[baronn1]

OK, you got me...;-)

"Victor Kan" > wrote in message
. com...
> Victor Kan wrote:
> > Anyway, here's a long reply
> > that at least tangentially has something to do with the original post
:-).
>
> Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I was making fun of my own post being
> only tangetially related to the original post, not what others have
> written, all of which pretty much has been directly related to the
> original post.
>
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
> legitimate replies.
>

[Bobinator]

I agree with the masses--hang in there. You did put in plenty of
miles, but without proper recovery it seems. You will build leg
strenght and stamina. I bought my Phantom II last december. When I
first started out, I was only marginally faster than I was on my
Tailwind, about 15 MPH. I usually average over 17 MPH now, and I can
keep up with some of my roadie friends. The racers still drop me, but
they would do so if I were on Lance's bike. It's still the engine.
Watvh for little things like wheel true as well. The front wheel on a
SWB can take a beating.

If you are interested, my review of the Phantom II appeares in the
latest issue of Recumbent Cyclist News.

Bob

(johlde) wrote in message >...
> I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul. It was a great ride,
> but it was frustrating in the sense that I could not keep up with my
> friend who owns a Bianchi upright. The first 2 days were fine, but by
> about the third day, my knees were killing me. I think I had my seat
> to far forward so I moved the seat back. That fixed that problem, but
> then I found that my legs tired much quicker on the recumbent than my
> friends on the upright. I knew my friend would be faster on the
> hills, but towards the end of the ride which was fairly flat, I could
> only maintain average speeds of around 15mph while my friend was
> maintaining averages of 17-19. When we both had uprights, we easily
> maintained averages of 18-19 and if we drafted off one another, we
> could maintain 20-21 averages. After this experience, I feel like
> going back to an upright. Is what I experienced typical of first-time
> recumbent experiences? Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an
> upright. I'm thinking of trading in the Phantom for a Strada and
> doing one more ride with my upright friend, and if I can't keep up on
> the Strada, I think I'll probably return to an upright. Recumbents
> seem less efficient to me with longer chain and heavier frames. When
> I was able to keep up with my upright friend, I had to work much
> harder and could only maintain it for 5-7 miles.

[Bobinator]

I agree with the masses--hang in there. You did put in plenty of
miles, but without proper recovery it seems. You will build leg
strenght and stamina. I bought my Phantom II last december. When I
first started out, I was only marginally faster than I was on my
Tailwind, about 15 MPH. I usually average over 17 MPH now, and I can
keep up with some of my roadie friends. The racers still drop me, but
they would do so if I were on Lance's bike. It's still the engine.
Watvh for little things like wheel true as well. The front wheel on a
SWB can take a beating.

If you are interested, my review of the Phantom II appeares in the
latest issue of Recumbent Cyclist News.

Bob

(johlde) wrote in message >...
> I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul. It was a great ride,
> but it was frustrating in the sense that I could not keep up with my
> friend who owns a Bianchi upright. The first 2 days were fine, but by
> about the third day, my knees were killing me. I think I had my seat
> to far forward so I moved the seat back. That fixed that problem, but
> then I found that my legs tired much quicker on the recumbent than my
> friends on the upright. I knew my friend would be faster on the
> hills, but towards the end of the ride which was fairly flat, I could
> only maintain average speeds of around 15mph while my friend was
> maintaining averages of 17-19. When we both had uprights, we easily
> maintained averages of 18-19 and if we drafted off one another, we
> could maintain 20-21 averages. After this experience, I feel like
> going back to an upright. Is what I experienced typical of first-time
> recumbent experiences? Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an
> upright. I'm thinking of trading in the Phantom for a Strada and
> doing one more ride with my upright friend, and if I can't keep up on
> the Strada, I think I'll probably return to an upright. Recumbents
> seem less efficient to me with longer chain and heavier frames. When
> I was able to keep up with my upright friend, I had to work much
> harder and could only maintain it for 5-7 miles.

[cbb]

It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
always pull away quickly on any kind of hill).
It appears that training on an upright doesn't directly translate into
speed on a bent. I imagine the difference is even greater if you are a
masher vs. a spinner on the upright.
I hope everyone is comfortable and fast on whatever bike they ride. I
am.

Craig
Optima Baron

"Eugene Cottrell" > wrote in message >...
> Your experience is similar to mine and all but one of the people in my area,
> that I know. I have a Strada and can not ride with the guys I always rode
> with on my upright. After several thousand miles, I've decided to sell the
> Strada and try to get back to the DF, if medical conditions permit. If not,
> I'd rather not ride than be frustrated on a recumbent. I'm a 5-10,000 mile
> a year rider and the recumbent just doesn't do it for me on the hilly
> terrain I ride in. Even on the flats I've tried, it just ain't fun. I know
> lots of folks on this group love their bents, but they apparently aren't for
> most people, that's why you rarely see them. Good luck in your attempt to
> enjoy the bent, but like I said they're not for everyone.
>
> Gene
>
> "johlde" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> > riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> > and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> > Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul. It was a great ride,
> > but it was frustrating in the sense that I could not keep up with my
> > friend who owns a Bianchi upright. The first 2 days were fine, but by
> > about the third day, my knees were killing me. I think I had my seat
> > to far forward so I moved the seat back. That fixed that problem, but
> > then I found that my legs tired much quicker on the recumbent than my
> > friends on the upright. I knew my friend would be faster on the
> > hills, but towards the end of the ride which was fairly flat, I could
> > only maintain average speeds of around 15mph while my friend was
> > maintaining averages of 17-19. When we both had uprights, we easily
> > maintained averages of 18-19 and if we drafted off one another, we
> > could maintain 20-21 averages. After this experience, I feel like
> > going back to an upright. Is what I experienced typical of first-time
> > recumbent experiences? Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an
> > upright. I'm thinking of trading in the Phantom for a Strada and
> > doing one more ride with my upright friend, and if I can't keep up on
> > the Strada, I think I'll probably return to an upright. Recumbents
> > seem less efficient to me with longer chain and heavier frames. When
> > I was able to keep up with my upright friend, I had to work much
> > harder and could only maintain it for 5-7 miles.

[cbb]

It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
always pull away quickly on any kind of hill).
It appears that training on an upright doesn't directly translate into
speed on a bent. I imagine the difference is even greater if you are a
masher vs. a spinner on the upright.
I hope everyone is comfortable and fast on whatever bike they ride. I
am.

Craig
Optima Baron

"Eugene Cottrell" > wrote in message >...
> Your experience is similar to mine and all but one of the people in my area,
> that I know. I have a Strada and can not ride with the guys I always rode
> with on my upright. After several thousand miles, I've decided to sell the
> Strada and try to get back to the DF, if medical conditions permit. If not,
> I'd rather not ride than be frustrated on a recumbent. I'm a 5-10,000 mile
> a year rider and the recumbent just doesn't do it for me on the hilly
> terrain I ride in. Even on the flats I've tried, it just ain't fun. I know
> lots of folks on this group love their bents, but they apparently aren't for
> most people, that's why you rarely see them. Good luck in your attempt to
> enjoy the bent, but like I said they're not for everyone.
>
> Gene
>
> "johlde" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I recently purchased my first recumbent - a Lightning Phantom - after
> > riding a Bianchi upright for several years. I bought it for comfort
> > and speed. I took this recumbent on a 1600 mile tour of the
> > Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Paul. It was a great ride,
> > but it was frustrating in the sense that I could not keep up with my
> > friend who owns a Bianchi upright. The first 2 days were fine, but by
> > about the third day, my knees were killing me. I think I had my seat
> > to far forward so I moved the seat back. That fixed that problem, but
> > then I found that my legs tired much quicker on the recumbent than my
> > friends on the upright. I knew my friend would be faster on the
> > hills, but towards the end of the ride which was fairly flat, I could
> > only maintain average speeds of around 15mph while my friend was
> > maintaining averages of 17-19. When we both had uprights, we easily
> > maintained averages of 18-19 and if we drafted off one another, we
> > could maintain 20-21 averages. After this experience, I feel like
> > going back to an upright. Is what I experienced typical of first-time
> > recumbent experiences? Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an
> > upright. I'm thinking of trading in the Phantom for a Strada and
> > doing one more ride with my upright friend, and if I can't keep up on
> > the Strada, I think I'll probably return to an upright. Recumbents
> > seem less efficient to me with longer chain and heavier frames. When
> > I was able to keep up with my upright friend, I had to work much
> > harder and could only maintain it for 5-7 miles.

[Victor Kan]

baronn1 wrote:
> I stand corrected, I should have used the term "relatively" The Bianchi is
> relatively expensive compared to the gamut of df bikes,

He didn't specify what model of Bianchi. Like the gamut of DF brands,
they make a wide price range of bikes.

> but the Phantom is relatively inexpensive for a recumbent.
> However, I don't think your tangent actually is a tangent at all. How are
> trikes,

As I wrote, I started out with a Mach III CLWB and gave that as the
example of my first-time recumbent experience.

> your experience with fit related to various df bikes,

Well, the original poster said he bought a recumbent for comfort and
speed. Fit related to various DF bikes has everything to do with
comfort, and to some extent speed. So maybe he doesn't have to give up
the DF for comfort--maybe he could get a DF bike with a more comfy
geometry, saddle, etc.

> and advocating owning both styles of bike related to the question posted, which was "Can I
> expect similar speeds on my bent as compared to my df?"?

Well, he said he was probably going to go back to uprights if recumbents
don't let him keep up with his upright friends.

I'm advocating that even if it turns out he can't keep up with his
upright friends (which I can certainly believe), he shouldn't give up on
recumbents. He should keep the 'bent as a complement to his DF,
switching on and off, it could help his technique and performance on
both. When he wants to keep up with this buddies, he can ride the DF.
When he wants to be more comfy on a longer ride, the bent might be just
the thing.

If he hasn't developed "recumbent muscles" in 1600 miles, maybe he
should try a different recumbent design. Rather than a high BB SWB,
maybe he would be better off with a low BB LWB, like a Gold Rush.

> I gave my opinions
> on this question, while you went on a multi topic ramble, never answering
> the question posted.

I think I did answer the questions asked, albeit in a rambling way.

> Is what I experienced typical of first-time recumbent experiences?

My experience wasn't as bad as the original poster's--my Mach III was
about the same for me as my Trek DF, maybe just 1MPH slower, but I
quickly came up to speed and resolved my comfort issues.

> Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an upright.

Maybe, maybe not. So far, for the original poster, not. One should not
expect similar speeds on a bent as compared to a DF. The bent will be
faster on certain terrain and slower on others. Anyone claiming total
superiority of one over the other would be selling snake oil (not that
I'm accusing anyone here of doing that).

Given how different the machines' configurations and designs are between
recumbents and DFs, I think it's unrealistic to expect equivalent
performance in all scenarios, and certainly unrealistic to expect the
recumbent to be equivalent or superior in all relevant respects (though
certain characteristics may disqualify one design or the other from
consideration).

The 2-4 MPH difference the original poster found between himself and his
friend (and by proxy, himself when he was on the upright and keeping
pace with his friend) exactly matches my typical experience when I
switch between my recumbent (albeit a tadpole trike rather than a SWB
bike) and my DF, even though I have "recumbent muscles" and only started
riding a DF again a few weeks and about 80 miles ago.

It might balance out overall in favor of the recumbent though, as it
likely does for most recumbent owners coming from the DF world.

For me, one of each is working out well, though if I get a Reynolds
T-Bone 700/20, I might give up the DF world again.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Victor Kan]

baronn1 wrote:
> I stand corrected, I should have used the term "relatively" The Bianchi is
> relatively expensive compared to the gamut of df bikes,

He didn't specify what model of Bianchi. Like the gamut of DF brands,
they make a wide price range of bikes.

> but the Phantom is relatively inexpensive for a recumbent.
> However, I don't think your tangent actually is a tangent at all. How are
> trikes,

As I wrote, I started out with a Mach III CLWB and gave that as the
example of my first-time recumbent experience.

> your experience with fit related to various df bikes,

Well, the original poster said he bought a recumbent for comfort and
speed. Fit related to various DF bikes has everything to do with
comfort, and to some extent speed. So maybe he doesn't have to give up
the DF for comfort--maybe he could get a DF bike with a more comfy
geometry, saddle, etc.

> and advocating owning both styles of bike related to the question posted, which was "Can I
> expect similar speeds on my bent as compared to my df?"?

Well, he said he was probably going to go back to uprights if recumbents
don't let him keep up with his upright friends.

I'm advocating that even if it turns out he can't keep up with his
upright friends (which I can certainly believe), he shouldn't give up on
recumbents. He should keep the 'bent as a complement to his DF,
switching on and off, it could help his technique and performance on
both. When he wants to keep up with this buddies, he can ride the DF.
When he wants to be more comfy on a longer ride, the bent might be just
the thing.

If he hasn't developed "recumbent muscles" in 1600 miles, maybe he
should try a different recumbent design. Rather than a high BB SWB,
maybe he would be better off with a low BB LWB, like a Gold Rush.

> I gave my opinions
> on this question, while you went on a multi topic ramble, never answering
> the question posted.

I think I did answer the questions asked, albeit in a rambling way.

> Is what I experienced typical of first-time recumbent experiences?

My experience wasn't as bad as the original poster's--my Mach III was
about the same for me as my Trek DF, maybe just 1MPH slower, but I
quickly came up to speed and resolved my comfort issues.

> Will I become as fast on a recumbent as an upright.

Maybe, maybe not. So far, for the original poster, not. One should not
expect similar speeds on a bent as compared to a DF. The bent will be
faster on certain terrain and slower on others. Anyone claiming total
superiority of one over the other would be selling snake oil (not that
I'm accusing anyone here of doing that).

Given how different the machines' configurations and designs are between
recumbents and DFs, I think it's unrealistic to expect equivalent
performance in all scenarios, and certainly unrealistic to expect the
recumbent to be equivalent or superior in all relevant respects (though
certain characteristics may disqualify one design or the other from
consideration).

The 2-4 MPH difference the original poster found between himself and his
friend (and by proxy, himself when he was on the upright and keeping
pace with his friend) exactly matches my typical experience when I
switch between my recumbent (albeit a tadpole trike rather than a SWB
bike) and my DF, even though I have "recumbent muscles" and only started
riding a DF again a few weeks and about 80 miles ago.

It might balance out overall in favor of the recumbent though, as it
likely does for most recumbent owners coming from the DF world.

For me, one of each is working out well, though if I get a Reynolds
T-Bone 700/20, I might give up the DF world again.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>Gary,
>
>My V-Rex did the same thing. If you call RANS they will send you a
>shim for your seat free of charge that will help keep the seat from
>moving. It worked for me.
>
>Scott.
>
>Gary Fritz > wrote in message
>...
>> Cletus Lee > wrote:
>> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
>> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>>
>> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
>> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
>> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
>> is moving 1-2" all the time??
>>
>> Gary


I may be wrong here, but I sort of thought Gary meant his butt moved around on
the seat, not that the seat moved on the frame. (Which we all know does happen
with RANS seats.)

If RANS has a shim to keep your butt from sliding around on the seat, I sure
would be interested in seeing one! ; )

Steve Christensen
Midland, MI

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>Gary,
>
>My V-Rex did the same thing. If you call RANS they will send you a
>shim for your seat free of charge that will help keep the seat from
>moving. It worked for me.
>
>Scott.
>
>Gary Fritz > wrote in message
>...
>> Cletus Lee > wrote:
>> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
>> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>>
>> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
>> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
>> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
>> is moving 1-2" all the time??
>>
>> Gary


I may be wrong here, but I sort of thought Gary meant his butt moved around on
the seat, not that the seat moved on the frame. (Which we all know does happen
with RANS seats.)

If RANS has a shim to keep your butt from sliding around on the seat, I sure
would be interested in seeing one! ; )

Steve Christensen
Midland, MI

[Tom Blum]

I have to agree ans say "I feel your pain!!"

Reading about bents, on line, it DOES sound like the speed advantage (at
least on the flat) is automatic. I, for one, and many others in this group,
didn't find thisto be so.

However, I have to say, that the comfort and novelty more than made up the
difference. Today, after about two years bent, I can say that I'm a couple
of miles per hour faster on my tour easy clone. My low racer clone is no
faster than the ERC, which puzzles me.

Apparently each type of bicycle/bent carries it's own group of physical
needs. Some have the build, or musculature,to get immediate speed benefits.
Others, like me, don't.


--
Miles of Smiles,

Tom Blum
Winter Haven, Florida
Homebuilts: SWB
Tour Easy Clone
Speed Machine Clone

www.gate.net/~teblum

[Tom Blum]

I have to agree ans say "I feel your pain!!"

Reading about bents, on line, it DOES sound like the speed advantage (at
least on the flat) is automatic. I, for one, and many others in this group,
didn't find thisto be so.

However, I have to say, that the comfort and novelty more than made up the
difference. Today, after about two years bent, I can say that I'm a couple
of miles per hour faster on my tour easy clone. My low racer clone is no
faster than the ERC, which puzzles me.

Apparently each type of bicycle/bent carries it's own group of physical
needs. Some have the build, or musculature,to get immediate speed benefits.
Others, like me, don't.


--
Miles of Smiles,

Tom Blum
Winter Haven, Florida
Homebuilts: SWB
Tour Easy Clone
Speed Machine Clone

www.gate.net/~teblum

[Cletus Lee]

In article >, says...
> Cletus Lee > wrote:
> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>
> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
> is moving 1-2" all the time??

Sometimes when I am having trouble staying awake, I have been known to slouch in my seat too. I
am sure this is the 1-2" that you are refering to. However, when torqueing the pedals or
applying the most power possible, your butt is firmly back against the seat. I think it is this
fine tuning that is critical to the knees and knee pain. I think with a closed position seat
like the Lightning when your back is to the wall, the potential for knee damage over time is
more likely than with a more reclined seat like a RANS or an M-5.
--

Cletus D. Lee
Bacchetta Giro
Lightning Voyager
http://www.clee.org
- Bellaire, TX USA -

[Cletus Lee]

In article >, says...
> Cletus Lee > wrote:
> > In addition to spinning, you need to fine tune the
> > seat to pedal distance. a change of 1/4" can make a big difference.
>
> This has always bothered me. On my V-Rex seat, my butt slides all over the
> place. I'd say there's at least 1", probably more like 2" of travel while
> I ride. How can I fine-tune the seat/pedal distance by 1/4" if my "seat"
> is moving 1-2" all the time??

Sometimes when I am having trouble staying awake, I have been known to slouch in my seat too. I
am sure this is the 1-2" that you are refering to. However, when torqueing the pedals or
applying the most power possible, your butt is firmly back against the seat. I think it is this
fine tuning that is critical to the knees and knee pain. I think with a closed position seat
like the Lightning when your back is to the wall, the potential for knee damage over time is
more likely than with a more reclined seat like a RANS or an M-5.
--

Cletus D. Lee
Bacchetta Giro
Lightning Voyager
http://www.clee.org
- Bellaire, TX USA -

[Tom Sherman]

cbb wrote:
>
> It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
> time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
> rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
> I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
> terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
> are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
> completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
> fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
> hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
> last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
> cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
> miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
> whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
> of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
> always pull away quickly on any kind of hill)....

Lowracer vs. upright into a headwind is not at all fair. :)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

cbb wrote:
>
> It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
> time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
> rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
> I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
> terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
> are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
> completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
> fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
> hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
> last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
> cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
> miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
> whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
> of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
> always pull away quickly on any kind of hill)....

Lowracer vs. upright into a headwind is not at all fair. :)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[cbb]

Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> cbb wrote:
> >
> > It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
> > time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
> > rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
> > I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
> > terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
> > are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
> > completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
> > fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
> > hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
> > last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
> > cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
> > miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
> > whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
> > of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
> > always pull away quickly on any kind of hill)....
>
> Lowracer vs. upright into a headwind is not at all fair. :)
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Your right its not fair. The upright cyclist I was riding with
commented to that affect many times during the ride. But I'll take any
advantage I can get. I am not a strong rider and I am over weight but
with my recumbent I can complete rides like that century in comfort
and in a reasonable time.
Craig

[cbb]

Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> cbb wrote:
> >
> > It sounds like upright riders with lots of miles have a more difficult
> > time transitioning to a recumbent than the more casual riders. I only
> > rode bicycles occasionally before getting my first bent. I've believe
> > I am definately more efficient on my recumbent on flat to rolling
> > terrain. I am 20+ pounds overweight and nearly all my rides this year
> > are the 8.5 mile ride through the city to work and back. Yet I have
> > completed two centuries this year (6 hr on bike 7 hr total). I wasn't
> > fast but I wasn't that slow either. On the last ride I was really
> > hurting after pushing myself too much on the first 80 miles. But the
> > last 20 was very flat with a strong head wind, I was riding with a
> > cyclist that was atleast 40 lbs lighter than me and had many more
> > miles in. While I was able to easily maintain 18mph he struggled the
> > whole way due to the wind. This was the strongest evidence I have seen
> > of the advantage of recumbent aerodynamics (other than the fact I
> > always pull away quickly on any kind of hill)....
>
> Lowracer vs. upright into a headwind is not at all fair. :)
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Your right its not fair. The upright cyclist I was riding with
commented to that affect many times during the ride. But I'll take any
advantage I can get. I am not a strong rider and I am over weight but
with my recumbent I can complete rides like that century in comfort
and in a reasonable time.
Craig

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>> Reading about bents, on line, it DOES sound like the
>> speed advantage (at least on the flat) is automatic.
>
>I was an occasional upright rider before my bent. I have a nice 8
>mile ride to work. I'd do that a couple times a week. I was out of
>condition, overweight, sedentary, balding (but that should add speed,
>right?) middle-aged (but to say that I should really have to know when
>I will die). I used to travel at 10-12 mph. I used all of my gears
>for some mild hills on my route.
>
>I bought a Vision R40. Now, after 1 year and 1750 miles, I travel at
>16-18, am still overweight but working on it. I use a gear about 5-6
>on my middle chain ring, even up these mild hills, and I go about 3X
>faster up them than before. I don't feel tired after a ride at all,
>unlike before.
>
>I am considering some serious bicycle touring next year and am
>committed to getting in better condition and dropping 40 lbs.


That is a great story. What is special about recumbents is that there are lots
of people just like this who would not be riding at all (or riding nearly as
much) if they hadn't found a recumbent bike. To me that is a lot more
significant than whether you can keep up with a 25 mph pace line in a club ride
(which I can, but it's awfully hard work).

Steve Christensen

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>> Reading about bents, on line, it DOES sound like the
>> speed advantage (at least on the flat) is automatic.
>
>I was an occasional upright rider before my bent. I have a nice 8
>mile ride to work. I'd do that a couple times a week. I was out of
>condition, overweight, sedentary, balding (but that should add speed,
>right?) middle-aged (but to say that I should really have to know when
>I will die). I used to travel at 10-12 mph. I used all of my gears
>for some mild hills on my route.
>
>I bought a Vision R40. Now, after 1 year and 1750 miles, I travel at
>16-18, am still overweight but working on it. I use a gear about 5-6
>on my middle chain ring, even up these mild hills, and I go about 3X
>faster up them than before. I don't feel tired after a ride at all,
>unlike before.
>
>I am considering some serious bicycle touring next year and am
>committed to getting in better condition and dropping 40 lbs.


That is a great story. What is special about recumbents is that there are lots
of people just like this who would not be riding at all (or riding nearly as
much) if they hadn't found a recumbent bike. To me that is a lot more
significant than whether you can keep up with a 25 mph pace line in a club ride
(which I can, but it's awfully hard work).

Steve Christensen

[[email protected]]

Steve Christensen > wrote:
: Bents may not be for everyone, but I submit that if you are (were?) a 5 to 10 K
: a year rodie, you are hardly everyone either! And while hard core rodies might
: be a bit disappointed in recumbent performance (at least initially), cyclists at
: this level of performance can not make up a very big percentage of the all the
: people out there buying bikes.

Why would a hard core roadie be slower on a bent while an
overweight casual rider would not? I admit specialization
(conditioning) to a platform can play a part, but is that really
such a huge factor?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

Steve Christensen > wrote:
: Bents may not be for everyone, but I submit that if you are (were?) a 5 to 10 K
: a year rodie, you are hardly everyone either! And while hard core rodies might
: be a bit disappointed in recumbent performance (at least initially), cyclists at
: this level of performance can not make up a very big percentage of the all the
: people out there buying bikes.

Why would a hard core roadie be slower on a bent while an
overweight casual rider would not? I admit specialization
(conditioning) to a platform can play a part, but is that really
such a huge factor?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

GeoB > wrote:
: I was an occasional upright rider before my bent. I have a nice 8
: mile ride to work. I'd do that a couple times a week. I was out of
: condition, overweight, sedentary, balding (but that should add speed,
: right?) middle-aged (but to say that I should really have to know when
: I will die). I used to travel at 10-12 mph. I used all of my gears
: for some mild hills on my route.

If you do that ride every day you work, it'll be like 3000 miles
of riding each year. :-)

Not so efficient training if you always ride at the same pace,
though.

: I bought a Vision R40. Now, after 1 year and 1750 miles, I travel at
: 16-18, am still overweight but working on it. I use a gear about 5-6
: on my middle chain ring, even up these mild hills, and I go about 3X
: faster up them than before. I don't feel tired after a ride at all,
: unlike before.

Could be just the effect from better motivation. You ride more and
sometimes you ride harder too.

Other than that, the bent probably has smooth high-pressure tires,
better components with less drag, could be lighter, and a more
sporty design overall...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

GeoB > wrote:
: I was an occasional upright rider before my bent. I have a nice 8
: mile ride to work. I'd do that a couple times a week. I was out of
: condition, overweight, sedentary, balding (but that should add speed,
: right?) middle-aged (but to say that I should really have to know when
: I will die). I used to travel at 10-12 mph. I used all of my gears
: for some mild hills on my route.

If you do that ride every day you work, it'll be like 3000 miles
of riding each year. :-)

Not so efficient training if you always ride at the same pace,
though.

: I bought a Vision R40. Now, after 1 year and 1750 miles, I travel at
: 16-18, am still overweight but working on it. I use a gear about 5-6
: on my middle chain ring, even up these mild hills, and I go about 3X
: faster up them than before. I don't feel tired after a ride at all,
: unlike before.

Could be just the effect from better motivation. You ride more and
sometimes you ride harder too.

Other than that, the bent probably has smooth high-pressure tires,
better components with less drag, could be lighter, and a more
sporty design overall...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Tom Blum]

Risto writes (Notice alliteration!!!)

"Why would a hard core roadie be slower on a bent while an
overweight casual rider would not? I admit specialization
(conditioning) to a platform can play a part, but is that really
such a huge factor?"

No one said what you allege. The correct comparison would be a rabid roadie
getting a bent and not being instantly faster.

Us slow guys just stay relatively slow. Even overwieght casual riders get
faster. Mainly because it's so much fun that they ride more, thus being less
casual and less overweight. ;-)


--
Miles of Smiles,

Tom Blum
Winter Haven, Florida
Homebuilts: SWB
Tour Easy Clone
Speed Machine Clone

www.gate.net/~teblum

[Tom Blum]

Risto writes (Notice alliteration!!!)

"Why would a hard core roadie be slower on a bent while an
overweight casual rider would not? I admit specialization
(conditioning) to a platform can play a part, but is that really
such a huge factor?"

No one said what you allege. The correct comparison would be a rabid roadie
getting a bent and not being instantly faster.

Us slow guys just stay relatively slow. Even overwieght casual riders get
faster. Mainly because it's so much fun that they ride more, thus being less
casual and less overweight. ;-)


--
Miles of Smiles,

Tom Blum
Winter Haven, Florida
Homebuilts: SWB
Tour Easy Clone
Speed Machine Clone

www.gate.net/~teblum

[Victor Kan]

> : My experience these past few months has been in the opposite direction
> : of most folks in this newsgroup. Back in May, I purchased an upright
> : bike, a Specialized Sequoia Sport road bike with various, alleged
> : comfort features (some are really to make it easier to manufacture and
> : stock fewer models to cover a wider range of potential buyers), like:
>
> Why a road bike? A hybrid bike could be very nice for short
> commutes and more flexible for all around riding. Maybe you don't
> see speedy riding as that important so you don't have a
> speed-optimized recumbent :-)

I do see speedy riding as important--that's partly why I got the road
bike. Speedy riding just isn't the main goal for me on the Trike.

As for why I didn't get a hybrid? Because I don't like MTB style bars,
even if they are raised up with "antlers" like hybrids have them.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Victor Kan]

> : My experience these past few months has been in the opposite direction
> : of most folks in this newsgroup. Back in May, I purchased an upright
> : bike, a Specialized Sequoia Sport road bike with various, alleged
> : comfort features (some are really to make it easier to manufacture and
> : stock fewer models to cover a wider range of potential buyers), like:
>
> Why a road bike? A hybrid bike could be very nice for short
> commutes and more flexible for all around riding. Maybe you don't
> see speedy riding as that important so you don't have a
> speed-optimized recumbent :-)

I do see speedy riding as important--that's partly why I got the road
bike. Speedy riding just isn't the main goal for me on the Trike.

As for why I didn't get a hybrid? Because I don't like MTB style bars,
even if they are raised up with "antlers" like hybrids have them.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

[Dave Larrington]

wrote:

> Bents can be faster, more comfortable and safer than uprights, but
> not all of it at a time.

I think I must take issue with the above. I find both the Baron and the
Speedmachine to be faster and more comfortable than uprights (Neil Fleming
told me recently that he used to set up his Baron on the turbo trainer in
the living room and use it as a chair) and as for safety:

o less far to fall
o less anonymous

And so on. Having said that, I *did* manage to drop the Speedmachine on
Sunday morning after a close encounter with some gravel at a junction, but
managed to get both a hand and a foot down, thus limiting damage to a
sprained dignity.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Dave Larrington]

wrote:

> Bents can be faster, more comfortable and safer than uprights, but
> not all of it at a time.

I think I must take issue with the above. I find both the Baron and the
Speedmachine to be faster and more comfortable than uprights (Neil Fleming
told me recently that he used to set up his Baron on the turbo trainer in
the living room and use it as a chair) and as for safety:

o less far to fall
o less anonymous

And so on. Having said that, I *did* manage to drop the Speedmachine on
Sunday morning after a close encounter with some gravel at a junction, but
managed to get both a hand and a foot down, thus limiting damage to a
sprained dignity.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========