Re: Rans V2 Formula?

[MLB]

"Helmut Neumann" > wrote in
et:

> After checking out the spec sheet this looks like a nice package. The
> new riser helps with the tiller affect that the old design has. The
> reduction in weight compared to the steel versions should help it
> climb better. Nice set of wheels. As I said a nice package. RANS has
> done a good job of adressing the original V2 shortcommings with this
> model. Still, for three grand, there are other bikes I would consider
> first. But if you have your heart set on a LWB ...
>
> Helmut
> "stratrider" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This looks like a very nice bike! What's the word on the street
>> about
> this bike?
>>
>> Jim Reilly
>> Reading, PA
>
>
>

If I wasn't sold on trikes, that's the bike I'd have.

[mike]

(stratrider) wrote in message >...
> This looks like a very nice bike! What's the word on the street about this bike?
>
> Jim Reilly
> Reading, PA

yes i just saw it too, i like the lower seat , looks like it could
really move out . .. anxiously awaiting a terst rider.

[mike]

(stratrider) wrote in message >...
> This looks like a very nice bike! What's the word on the street about this bike?
>
> Jim Reilly
> Reading, PA

yes i just saw it too, i like the lower seat , looks like it could
really move out . .. anxiously awaiting a terst rider.

[Steve Christensen]

In article >, "Helmut says...
>
>After checking out the spec sheet this looks like a nice package. The new
>riser helps with the tiller affect that the old design has. The reduction in
>weight compared to the steel versions should help it climb better. Nice set
>of wheels. As I said a nice package. RANS has done a good job of adressing
>the original V2 shortcommings with this model. Still, for three grand, there
>are other bikes I would consider first. But if you have your heart set on a
>LWB ...


My wife and I both ride custom V2s from Power On Cycling, that are very similar
to the Formula. They all have about the same level of components, with a mix of
Ultegra level Shimano and SRAM, and the same Velocity Thracian wheelsets. The
only difference is that the Formula has an aluminum frame and the carbon seat -
and costs $1200 more than our bikes! That seemed like a bit too much to pay for
the aluminum frame to me.

As for the ride, the custom V2s are amazingly faster than my Vision VR-42, and
feel much more stable at speed. They also accelerate very well, as I was able
to demonstrate over the weekend when I pulled away from a friend on a Trek 5200.
Not sure about the weight, as I haven't weighed mine yet. But the upgrades to
the components and wheels are a fair amount of the weigth savings of the Formula
over the standard V2.

I will say that my Vision is a more comfortable ride. Much more comfortable in
fact. Part of that is the suspension, but I find the Vision seat preferable
too. After 160 miles this weekend I was wishing for the best of both bikes.

I have mixed feelings about the new handlebar setup on the V2s. It does have
less tiller than the old riser (mine is new, my wife's is a 2001), and is easier
to handle at low speed. But the bar doesn't extend very far back, and if I put
my seat back as far as I like I can't even reach the handlebar! (And I special
ordered mine with the bigger bars and larger riser.) So I have one of the old
risers on order from RANS and I'll see if that improves things.

So yes, I imagine the Formula is a great ride, since it must be even better than
my custom V2. Not sure about the $3000 price though.

Steve Christensen
Midland, MI

[Steve Christensen]

In article >, "Helmut says...
>
>After checking out the spec sheet this looks like a nice package. The new
>riser helps with the tiller affect that the old design has. The reduction in
>weight compared to the steel versions should help it climb better. Nice set
>of wheels. As I said a nice package. RANS has done a good job of adressing
>the original V2 shortcommings with this model. Still, for three grand, there
>are other bikes I would consider first. But if you have your heart set on a
>LWB ...


My wife and I both ride custom V2s from Power On Cycling, that are very similar
to the Formula. They all have about the same level of components, with a mix of
Ultegra level Shimano and SRAM, and the same Velocity Thracian wheelsets. The
only difference is that the Formula has an aluminum frame and the carbon seat -
and costs $1200 more than our bikes! That seemed like a bit too much to pay for
the aluminum frame to me.

As for the ride, the custom V2s are amazingly faster than my Vision VR-42, and
feel much more stable at speed. They also accelerate very well, as I was able
to demonstrate over the weekend when I pulled away from a friend on a Trek 5200.
Not sure about the weight, as I haven't weighed mine yet. But the upgrades to
the components and wheels are a fair amount of the weigth savings of the Formula
over the standard V2.

I will say that my Vision is a more comfortable ride. Much more comfortable in
fact. Part of that is the suspension, but I find the Vision seat preferable
too. After 160 miles this weekend I was wishing for the best of both bikes.

I have mixed feelings about the new handlebar setup on the V2s. It does have
less tiller than the old riser (mine is new, my wife's is a 2001), and is easier
to handle at low speed. But the bar doesn't extend very far back, and if I put
my seat back as far as I like I can't even reach the handlebar! (And I special
ordered mine with the bigger bars and larger riser.) So I have one of the old
risers on order from RANS and I'll see if that improves things.

So yes, I imagine the Formula is a great ride, since it must be even better than
my custom V2. Not sure about the $3000 price though.

Steve Christensen
Midland, MI

[Marci Taylor]

(mike) wrote in message >...
> (stratrider) wrote in message >...
> > This looks like a very nice bike! What's the word on the street about this bike?
> >
> > Jim Reilly
> > Reading, PA
>
> yes i just saw it too, i like the lower seat , looks like it could
> really move out . .. anxiously awaiting a terst rider.

I have one that is paid for and on order. I think the arrival date is
sometime in August. I'll give a full report once I recieve the bike
and get some miles on it.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

(mike) wrote in message >...
> (stratrider) wrote in message >...
> > This looks like a very nice bike! What's the word on the street about this bike?
> >
> > Jim Reilly
> > Reading, PA
>
> yes i just saw it too, i like the lower seat , looks like it could
> really move out . .. anxiously awaiting a terst rider.

I have one that is paid for and on order. I think the arrival date is
sometime in August. I'll give a full report once I recieve the bike
and get some miles on it.
Marci

['BentRider]

Now that's the credit card-wielding Marci that we all know and love.
Welcome back!



Bryan J. Ball
Editor/Publisher
www.bentrideronline.com

['BentRider]

Now that's the credit card-wielding Marci that we all know and love.
Welcome back!



Bryan J. Ball
Editor/Publisher
www.bentrideronline.com

[luvabluzer]

luvabluzer wrote:



Steve,

You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[luvabluzer]

luvabluzer wrote:



Steve,

You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[luvabluzer]

luvabluzer wrote:



Steve,

You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[luvabluzer]

luvabluzer wrote:



Steve,

You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Steve Christensen]

>luvabluzer wrote:

>Steve,
>
>You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.


Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
the standard seat.


Steve Christensen

[Steve Christensen]

>luvabluzer wrote:

>Steve,
>
>You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.


Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
the standard seat.


Steve Christensen

[Marci Taylor]

Steve Christensen > wrote in message >...
> >luvabluzer wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>
>
> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
> the standard seat.
>
>
> Steve Christensen


Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
different performing bikes.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

Steve Christensen > wrote in message >...
> >luvabluzer wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>
>
> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
> the standard seat.
>
>
> Steve Christensen


Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
different performing bikes.
Marci

[Tom Sherman]

Marci Taylor wrote:
> ...Also, aluminum is
> less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> different performing bikes.

The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
thickness.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Marci Taylor wrote:
> ...Also, aluminum is
> less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> different performing bikes.

The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
thickness.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>...
>> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>>
>>
>>Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
>> the standard seat.
>>
>>
>> Steve Christensen
>
>
>Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
>pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
>That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
>less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
>the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
>different performing bikes.
>Marci


Well according to their site the weight difference is 5 lbs for the Formula,
which is, I grant you, significant. I'll have to get around to weighing my
custom V2 to see how much more it weighs with the standard seat and frame. I'm
guessing it will be 2 to 3 lbs heavier than the Formula. (Which would work out
to $400 to $600 a pound for the difference.)

As for the aluminum frame and the Gold Rush comparison, with the standard V2 and
Formula there is more than just the frame that is different, and I suspect that
it is the same with the Gold Rush. Meaning you can't contribute all of the
performance difference to the frame, as the upgraded bike usually has better
wheels and components.

I wonder about the importance of frame stiffness too. There have been a number
of interesting comments recently on the value of rigid pan type seats. One of
the advantages is said to be that the seat does not flex, so that all of your
energy goes into the bike. This makes me wonder whether improving the stiffness
of the frame is as meaningful if you don't have a rigid seat to transfer the
energy without power loss.

Anyway I'll have to get out the scale.

Steve Christensen

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>...
>> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>>
>>
>>Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the steel frame and
>> the standard seat.
>>
>>
>> Steve Christensen
>
>
>Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
>pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
>That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
>less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
>the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
>different performing bikes.
>Marci


Well according to their site the weight difference is 5 lbs for the Formula,
which is, I grant you, significant. I'll have to get around to weighing my
custom V2 to see how much more it weighs with the standard seat and frame. I'm
guessing it will be 2 to 3 lbs heavier than the Formula. (Which would work out
to $400 to $600 a pound for the difference.)

As for the aluminum frame and the Gold Rush comparison, with the standard V2 and
Formula there is more than just the frame that is different, and I suspect that
it is the same with the Gold Rush. Meaning you can't contribute all of the
performance difference to the frame, as the upgraded bike usually has better
wheels and components.

I wonder about the importance of frame stiffness too. There have been a number
of interesting comments recently on the value of rigid pan type seats. One of
the advantages is said to be that the seat does not flex, so that all of your
energy goes into the bike. This makes me wonder whether improving the stiffness
of the frame is as meaningful if you don't have a rigid seat to transfer the
energy without power loss.

Anyway I'll have to get out the scale.

Steve Christensen

[Marci Taylor]

Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> Marci Taylor wrote:
> > ...Also, aluminum is
> > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > different performing bikes.
>
> The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
> with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
> greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
> elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
> steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
> stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
> thickness.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Hi Tom:
That is interesting. Obviously you have some good knowledge on this
as I do not. I am wondering though, why then the tour easy is
reported to be much slower than the GRR with same component package.
Bob Bryant of RCN news reports MUCH greater speeds on the GRR than the
Tour EAsy with same conditions/rider/etc. What do you think? Also,
Bob Bryant, if you are reading this, maybe you could comment.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> Marci Taylor wrote:
> > ...Also, aluminum is
> > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > different performing bikes.
>
> The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
> with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
> greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
> elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
> steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
> stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
> thickness.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Hi Tom:
That is interesting. Obviously you have some good knowledge on this
as I do not. I am wondering though, why then the tour easy is
reported to be much slower than the GRR with same component package.
Bob Bryant of RCN news reports MUCH greater speeds on the GRR than the
Tour EAsy with same conditions/rider/etc. What do you think? Also,
Bob Bryant, if you are reading this, maybe you could comment.
Marci

[stratrider]

Tom, can we as readers (and riders) then conclude that the tubing used
on the GRR must have thicker walls than the TE (as I see no difference
in tubing diameter)?

Jim Reilly

[stratrider]

Tom, can we as readers (and riders) then conclude that the tubing used
on the GRR must have thicker walls than the TE (as I see no difference
in tubing diameter)?

Jim Reilly

[MLB]

(Marci Taylor) wrote in
m:

> Steve Christensen > wrote in message
> >...
>> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>>
>>
>> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
>> steel frame and the standard seat.
>>
>>
>> Steve Christensen
>
>
> Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
> pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
> That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
> less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> different performing bikes.
> Marci

The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
faster from anything there.

[MLB]

(Marci Taylor) wrote in
m:

> Steve Christensen > wrote in message
> >...
>> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >Steve,
>> >
>> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
>> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
>>
>>
>> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
>> steel frame and the standard seat.
>>
>>
>> Steve Christensen
>
>
> Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
> pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
> That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
> less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> different performing bikes.
> Marci

The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
faster from anything there.

[Tom Sherman]

stratrider wrote:
>
> Tom, can we as readers (and riders) then conclude that the tubing used
> on the GRR must have thicker walls than the TE (as I see no difference
> in tubing diameter)?

I recall the GRR as having larger diameter tubing than the TE - would
someone from Easy Racers or a dealer inform us of the actual tubing
diameters (and wall thicknesses if available).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

stratrider wrote:
>
> Tom, can we as readers (and riders) then conclude that the tubing used
> on the GRR must have thicker walls than the TE (as I see no difference
> in tubing diameter)?

I recall the GRR as having larger diameter tubing than the TE - would
someone from Easy Racers or a dealer inform us of the actual tubing
diameters (and wall thicknesses if available).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[john riley]

I think it is very unlikely that the alu frame would have the same
wall thickness as a steel frame. I think the alu tubes will have much
thicker walls.

John Riley

(Marci Taylor) wrote in message >...
> Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> > Marci Taylor wrote:
> > > ...Also, aluminum is
> > > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > > different performing bikes.
> >
> > The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
> > with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
> > greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
> > elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
> > steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
> > stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
> > thickness.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> Hi Tom:
> That is interesting. Obviously you have some good knowledge on this
> as I do not. I am wondering though, why then the tour easy is
> reported to be much slower than the GRR with same component package.
> Bob Bryant of RCN news reports MUCH greater speeds on the GRR than the
> Tour EAsy with same conditions/rider/etc. What do you think? Also,
> Bob Bryant, if you are reading this, maybe you could comment.
> Marci

[john riley]

I think it is very unlikely that the alu frame would have the same
wall thickness as a steel frame. I think the alu tubes will have much
thicker walls.

John Riley

(Marci Taylor) wrote in message >...
> Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> > Marci Taylor wrote:
> > > ...Also, aluminum is
> > > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > > different performing bikes.
> >
> > The aluminium alloy frame will be stiffer than the steel only if tubing
> > with a significantly higher moment of inertia (larger diameter and/or
> > greater wall thickness) is used. Aluminium alloys typically have an
> > elastic modulus in the range of 70-80 GPa, while the elastic modulus of
> > steel is around 200 GPa. So a steel tube will be almost three times as
> > stiff as an aluminium alloy tube of the same diameter and wall
> > thickness.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> Hi Tom:
> That is interesting. Obviously you have some good knowledge on this
> as I do not. I am wondering though, why then the tour easy is
> reported to be much slower than the GRR with same component package.
> Bob Bryant of RCN news reports MUCH greater speeds on the GRR than the
> Tour EAsy with same conditions/rider/etc. What do you think? Also,
> Bob Bryant, if you are reading this, maybe you could comment.
> Marci

[TBRADSTER]

Marci's back. Awesome!

Brad.

[TBRADSTER]

Marci's back. Awesome!

Brad.

[PaPa]

"I recall the GRR as having larger diameter tubing than the TE - would
someone from Easy Racers or a dealer inform us of the actual tubing
diameters (and wall thicknesses if available).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)"

I wish you luck acquiring ANY technical information from Easy Racers.
Gabe, (the floor sweeper at ER) ignored requests for bare frame weights
of both the TE and the GRR. As a frame builder, I'd guess there's
probably less than 2 pounds difference between the two. Although
aluminum is roughly half the weight of steel, compareable frame geometry
generally requires larger diameter tubes AND/OR thicker walls when using
aluminum. Simply switching to aluminum doesn't always yeild a lighter
frame - and can make it heavier if the design is incompatable.

An interesting note; take a look at the weights of the LWB Rotator
Pursuit: http://rotatorrecumbent.com/levels.html#level1

Level one is chromoly and weights 31 pounds. Level two is also chromoly
but it's weight is 5 pounds lighter (26 lbs).

It's easy to see that component selection can, and often does, have a
significantly greater effect on total weight than frame composition.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[PaPa]

"I recall the GRR as having larger diameter tubing than the TE - would
someone from Easy Racers or a dealer inform us of the actual tubing
diameters (and wall thicknesses if available).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)"

I wish you luck acquiring ANY technical information from Easy Racers.
Gabe, (the floor sweeper at ER) ignored requests for bare frame weights
of both the TE and the GRR. As a frame builder, I'd guess there's
probably less than 2 pounds difference between the two. Although
aluminum is roughly half the weight of steel, compareable frame geometry
generally requires larger diameter tubes AND/OR thicker walls when using
aluminum. Simply switching to aluminum doesn't always yeild a lighter
frame - and can make it heavier if the design is incompatable.

An interesting note; take a look at the weights of the LWB Rotator
Pursuit: http://rotatorrecumbent.com/levels.html#level1

Level one is chromoly and weights 31 pounds. Level two is also chromoly
but it's weight is 5 pounds lighter (26 lbs).

It's easy to see that component selection can, and often does, have a
significantly greater effect on total weight than frame composition.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Marci Taylor]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> (Marci Taylor) wrote in
> m:
>
> > Steve Christensen > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> >luvabluzer wrote:
>
> >> >Steve,
> >> >
> >> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
> >> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
> >>
> >>
> >> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
> >> steel frame and the standard seat.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve Christensen
> >
> >
> > Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
> > pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
> > That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
> > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > different performing bikes.
> > Marci
>
> The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
> faster from anything there.


Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> (Marci Taylor) wrote in
> m:
>
> > Steve Christensen > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> >luvabluzer wrote:
>
> >> >Steve,
> >> >
> >> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the aluminum
> >> >frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back in 2001.
> >>
> >>
> >> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
> >> steel frame and the standard seat.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve Christensen
> >
> >
> > Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about 7
> > pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components too).
> > That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also, aluminum is
> > less flexy which should provide more speed. A good example of this is
> > the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush (aluminum). They are very
> > different performing bikes.
> > Marci
>
> The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
> faster from anything there.


Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
Marci

[MLB]

(Marci Taylor) wrote in
om:

> MLB > wrote in message
> >...
>> (Marci Taylor) wrote in
>> m:
>>
>> > Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >> >Steve,
>> >> >
>> >> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the
>> >> >aluminum frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back
>> >> >in 2001.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
>> >> steel frame and the standard seat.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve Christensen
>> >
>> >
>> > Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about
>> > 7 pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components
>> > too). That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also,
>> > aluminum is less flexy which should provide more speed. A good
>> > example of this is the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush
>> > (aluminum). They are very different performing bikes.
>> > Marci
>>
>> The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
>> faster from anything there.
>
>
> Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
> cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
> bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
> way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
> necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
> upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
> then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
> Marci

Road bikes are still racing/performance driven (it seems). Light weight
is certainly a huge part of the perception/reality of speed. So the
lightness of aluminum would always be attractive, even if the same size
frame is weaker as an end result. That would jibe with the repeated
opinion offered by wedgie riders that it's not "if" but "when" an
aluminum frame will break. If ultimate light weight and not long life is
the goal then that "when" would seem to be a given, especially off
roading.
Other bike design (materials) still partly drive recumbent design due
to materials and methods of working those materials that filters down
(trickle down effect?) to recumbents. If aluminum is popular for road
bikes then people will want it/demand it in recumbents as well. There
seems to be a new titanium bike or trike every year. Why? They wouldn't
bother if people didn't ask for them. Maybe because it's cool,
exclusive, and expensive. That's enough to tweak a certain number of
riders.
Weight has gotten to be the "hot" topic when discussing performance
bents. If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and
published weight, that will be significant to a certain number of
prospective buyers.
Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed sprints/rides with
the steel and then the alum versions of the same bike (over days). See
how much difference that 7lbs really makes.

[MLB]

(Marci Taylor) wrote in
om:

> MLB > wrote in message
> >...
>> (Marci Taylor) wrote in
>> m:
>>
>> > Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> >luvabluzer wrote:
>>
>> >> >Steve,
>> >> >
>> >> >You got a custom V2 with similar components except for the
>> >> >aluminum frame for $1800? That's what I paid for my stock V2 back
>> >> >in 2001.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Seemed like a good deal to me too. The only differences are the
>> >> steel frame and the standard seat.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve Christensen
>> >
>> >
>> > Keep in mind though, that the aluminum framed version weights about
>> > 7 pounds less than the cromo version (with upgraded components
>> > too). That is a sigificant amount of weight on a bike. Also,
>> > aluminum is less flexy which should provide more speed. A good
>> > example of this is the tour easy (cromoly)vs the gold rush
>> > (aluminum). They are very different performing bikes.
>> > Marci
>>
>> The V² is a very stiff bike even in steel form. Doubt it will be any
>> faster from anything there.
>
>
> Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
> cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
> bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
> way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
> necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
> upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
> then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
> Marci

Road bikes are still racing/performance driven (it seems). Light weight
is certainly a huge part of the perception/reality of speed. So the
lightness of aluminum would always be attractive, even if the same size
frame is weaker as an end result. That would jibe with the repeated
opinion offered by wedgie riders that it's not "if" but "when" an
aluminum frame will break. If ultimate light weight and not long life is
the goal then that "when" would seem to be a given, especially off
roading.
Other bike design (materials) still partly drive recumbent design due
to materials and methods of working those materials that filters down
(trickle down effect?) to recumbents. If aluminum is popular for road
bikes then people will want it/demand it in recumbents as well. There
seems to be a new titanium bike or trike every year. Why? They wouldn't
bother if people didn't ask for them. Maybe because it's cool,
exclusive, and expensive. That's enough to tweak a certain number of
riders.
Weight has gotten to be the "hot" topic when discussing performance
bents. If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and
published weight, that will be significant to a certain number of
prospective buyers.
Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed sprints/rides with
the steel and then the alum versions of the same bike (over days). See
how much difference that 7lbs really makes.

[PaPa]

Mlb wrote:
> If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and published
> weight, that will be significant to a certain number of prospective
> buyers. Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed
> sprints/rides with the steel and then the alum versions of the same bike
> (over days). See how much difference that 7lbs really makes.




Two interesting issues popped-up in your post.

1. S-e-v-e-n pounds? In your dreams maybe.

2. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about
bare frame weights. Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if
that much?) saved doesn't justify an extra grand spent in the mind(s)
of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-end goodies to
shave an extra pound or two and the plastic wielding consumers begin
lining-up.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[PaPa]

Mlb wrote:
> If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and published
> weight, that will be significant to a certain number of prospective
> buyers. Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed
> sprints/rides with the steel and then the alum versions of the same bike
> (over days). See how much difference that 7lbs really makes.




Two interesting issues popped-up in your post.

1. S-e-v-e-n pounds? In your dreams maybe.

2. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about
bare frame weights. Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if
that much?) saved doesn't justify an extra grand spent in the mind(s)
of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-end goodies to
shave an extra pound or two and the plastic wielding consumers begin
lining-up.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[john riley]

> > Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
> > cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
> > bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
> > way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
> > necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
> > upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
> > then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
> > Marci

Good question. This quote comes from here (consider the source; they
like steel):

http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/101/frame_materials_101.htm

Quote: >>> A good, 56cm steel road frame may weigh 4.5lb. A superlight
steel road frame may weigh 3.5lb. A light aluminum frame is around
3lb, some even less. Some carbon fiber frames are down around 2.5lb.
The percentage difference of the bare frame weights is up to 40
percent, which sounds considerable until you factor in the weight of
the bike parts (another 17lbs), at which point it falls to about 9
percent. Add a 165lb rider, and the real, meaningful difference is
less than 1 percent. <<<<End Quote

In the conventional bike world, I think it is marketing and fashion,
combined with misconceptions (aluminum = light). People buy alu $300
MTB's with suspension forks. IMHO these things are pigs compared to
the steel Euro and Japanese "ten speeds" that were the common bike
before MTB's. (If we didn't like dropped bars on our ten speeds, we
just put on straight bars. duh.)

I can't speak for recumbents. I think you have to take it on a case by
case basis. People feel the alu GR works better than the steel TE, for
whatever reason. We will just have to see with the V2.

John Riley

[john riley]

> > Ok, I've read all these responses regarding the aluminum vs the
> > cromoly. My question now is, "why do these bike manufacturers even
> > bother making aluminum frames then if they are not superior in any
> > way?" That is what everyone is suggesting. That they are not
> > necessarily lighter weight, not stronger, etc. Why then are most
> > upright road bikes, and upright mtn. bikes aluminum framed? And, why
> > then are many expensive bents now made out of aluminum?????
> > Marci

Good question. This quote comes from here (consider the source; they
like steel):

http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/101/frame_materials_101.htm

Quote: >>> A good, 56cm steel road frame may weigh 4.5lb. A superlight
steel road frame may weigh 3.5lb. A light aluminum frame is around
3lb, some even less. Some carbon fiber frames are down around 2.5lb.
The percentage difference of the bare frame weights is up to 40
percent, which sounds considerable until you factor in the weight of
the bike parts (another 17lbs), at which point it falls to about 9
percent. Add a 165lb rider, and the real, meaningful difference is
less than 1 percent. <<<<End Quote

In the conventional bike world, I think it is marketing and fashion,
combined with misconceptions (aluminum = light). People buy alu $300
MTB's with suspension forks. IMHO these things are pigs compared to
the steel Euro and Japanese "ten speeds" that were the common bike
before MTB's. (If we didn't like dropped bars on our ten speeds, we
just put on straight bars. duh.)

I can't speak for recumbents. I think you have to take it on a case by
case basis. People feel the alu GR works better than the steel TE, for
whatever reason. We will just have to see with the V2.

John Riley

[Bob Wand]

When I bought my GRR, I was told by the head man at Easy Racers the GRR
frame was 1 1/2 pounds lighter than the Tour Easy.

"PaPa" > wrote in message
...
> Mlb wrote:
> > If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and published
> > weight, that will be significant to a certain number of prospective
> > buyers. Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed
> > sprints/rides with the steel and then the alum versions of the same
bike
> > (over days). See how much difference that 7lbs really makes.
>
>
>
>
> Two interesting issues popped-up in your post.
>
> 1. S-e-v-e-n pounds? In your dreams maybe.
>
> 2. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about
> bare frame weights. Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if
> that much?) saved doesn't justify an extra grand spent in the mind(s)
> of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-end goodies to
> shave an extra pound or two and the plastic wielding consumers begin
> lining-up.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Bob Wand]

When I bought my GRR, I was told by the head man at Easy Racers the GRR
frame was 1 1/2 pounds lighter than the Tour Easy.

"PaPa" > wrote in message
...
> Mlb wrote:
> > If an aluminum frame can cut 7lbs off a much discussed and published
> > weight, that will be significant to a certain number of prospective
> > buyers. Sure would love to see someone do a number of timed
> > sprints/rides with the steel and then the alum versions of the same
bike
> > (over days). See how much difference that 7lbs really makes.
>
>
>
>
> Two interesting issues popped-up in your post.
>
> 1. S-e-v-e-n pounds? In your dreams maybe.
>
> 2. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about
> bare frame weights. Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if
> that much?) saved doesn't justify an extra grand spent in the mind(s)
> of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-end goodies to
> shave an extra pound or two and the plastic wielding consumers begin
> lining-up.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

[john riley]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> Thought someone here said it (V2) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?

Certainly not the RANS specs. They have it at 31 lbs. vs 26.8 lbs.
Probably most of that is the carbon seat pan and thin pad.

john riley

[john riley]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> Thought someone here said it (V2) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?

Certainly not the RANS specs. They have it at 31 lbs. vs 26.8 lbs.
Probably most of that is the carbon seat pan and thin pad.

john riley

[MLB]

(john riley) wrote in
om:

> MLB > wrote in message
> >...
>> Thought someone here said it (V2) was 7lbs lighter than the steel
>> version?
>
> Certainly not the RANS specs. They have it at 31 lbs. vs 26.8 lbs.
> Probably most of that is the carbon seat pan and thin pad.
>
> john riley

Think it was the first post on this topic. (gone on my puter)

[MLB]

(john riley) wrote in
om:

> MLB > wrote in message
> >...
>> Thought someone here said it (V2) was 7lbs lighter than the steel
>> version?
>
> Certainly not the RANS specs. They have it at 31 lbs. vs 26.8 lbs.
> Probably most of that is the carbon seat pan and thin pad.
>
> john riley

Think it was the first post on this topic. (gone on my puter)

[Marci Taylor]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?

I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

MLB > wrote in message >...
> Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?

I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.
Marci

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>MLB > wrote in message
>...
>> Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?
>
>I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
>still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
>V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
> The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
>of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
>frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.


Ya gotta love those "weights" that manufacturers publish for their bikes. RANS
gives the weight of the standard V2 at 31 lbs, yet Marcie's dealer found it to
weigh 32. RANS also gives the weight of the Formula at 26.8 lbs. Makes me
wonder just what that will end up weighing?

Of course the cromo V2 above might have been rigged on the LBS floor with pedals
and kickstand, which could explain the difference. On the RANS web site they
state that the new seat pan and cushion save 1.5 lbs, which would leave just 2.7
lbs difference for the lighter wheels, components, and frame of the Formula.

So we have to get Marcie to promise to weigh her new Formula first thing before
inflating the tires or mounting anything on it. ;-)

Steve Christensen

[Steve Christensen]

In article >,
says...
>
>MLB > wrote in message
>...
>> Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?
>
>I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
>still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
>V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
> The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
>of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
>frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.


Ya gotta love those "weights" that manufacturers publish for their bikes. RANS
gives the weight of the standard V2 at 31 lbs, yet Marcie's dealer found it to
weigh 32. RANS also gives the weight of the Formula at 26.8 lbs. Makes me
wonder just what that will end up weighing?

Of course the cromo V2 above might have been rigged on the LBS floor with pedals
and kickstand, which could explain the difference. On the RANS web site they
state that the new seat pan and cushion save 1.5 lbs, which would leave just 2.7
lbs difference for the lighter wheels, components, and frame of the Formula.

So we have to get Marcie to promise to weigh her new Formula first thing before
inflating the tires or mounting anything on it. ;-)

Steve Christensen

[Marci Taylor]

(PJ) wrote in message >...
> (Marci Taylor) wrote in message >...
> > MLB > wrote in message >...
> > > Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?
> >
> > I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
> > still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
> > V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
> > The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
> > of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
> > frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.
> > Marci
>
> An honest 26 lbs seems pretty optimistic....Rans lists the V2 Formula
> as 28.5 lbs and I have found there information to also be a bit
> optimistic. None the less it looks to be a great bike and I am sure
> that you will enjoy it at whatever weight it comes in at.
>
> Pat Mc

I know they did publish those higher weights, 28.5 in their earlier
brochures but according to several high up people at Rans, the weight
is now an honest 26.8 due to some changes in the seat and the
components. I don't think the weight is so hard to swallow given that
an easy racers gold rush can weight in that same neighborhood with all
the high end parts. My custom tailwind which is now a 26/20 wheel
combo( and is all ultegra groupo with HED extra light wheels) weights
an honest 29 lbs. and that is with the old heavy seat and the over
constructed heavly cromo frame. Expensive components can really shave
off weight. The Velocity has the Chris king headset and the light
wheels which saw a ton of weight not to mention the light seat.
marci
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

(PJ) wrote in message >...
> (Marci Taylor) wrote in message >...
> > MLB > wrote in message >...
> > > Thought someone here said it (V²) was 7lbs lighter than the steel version?
> >
> > I said that and I was wrong. It's about 5 or 6lbs. lighter which is
> > still significaant when you consider hills, etc. My dealer has a 2003
> > V2 cromo version and we put it on the scales and it weighted in at 32.
> > The V2 formula aluminum version is said to weigh an honest 26. Much
> > of this weight reduction is from parts not just frame. I think the
> > frame itself is only 1.5 to 2 lbs. lighter.
> > Marci
>
> An honest 26 lbs seems pretty optimistic....Rans lists the V2 Formula
> as 28.5 lbs and I have found there information to also be a bit
> optimistic. None the less it looks to be a great bike and I am sure
> that you will enjoy it at whatever weight it comes in at.
>
> Pat Mc

I know they did publish those higher weights, 28.5 in their earlier
brochures but according to several high up people at Rans, the weight
is now an honest 26.8 due to some changes in the seat and the
components. I don't think the weight is so hard to swallow given that
an easy racers gold rush can weight in that same neighborhood with all
the high end parts. My custom tailwind which is now a 26/20 wheel
combo( and is all ultegra groupo with HED extra light wheels) weights
an honest 29 lbs. and that is with the old heavy seat and the over
constructed heavly cromo frame. Expensive components can really shave
off weight. The Velocity has the Chris king headset and the light
wheels which saw a ton of weight not to mention the light seat.
marci
Marci

[PaPa]

I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
ride. It's brutal.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[PaPa]

I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
ride. It's brutal.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Robert Siegel]

Marci --

None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people like
the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a couple of
hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes got to dealers.
I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller effect ... and it was
a struggle (for me at least) to get started uphill. And Atlanta is all up
hill. ;-))

Gator Bob Siegel

"PaPa" > wrote in message
...
> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Robert Siegel]

Marci --

None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people like
the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a couple of
hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes got to dealers.
I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller effect ... and it was
a struggle (for me at least) to get started uphill. And Atlanta is all up
hill. ;-))

Gator Bob Siegel

"PaPa" > wrote in message
...
> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

[MLB]

PaPa > wrote in news:3f20d91b$1_2
@news.chariot.net.au:

> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.
>
>
>
> --
>>--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com
>

I wondered about that. The steel V² was the stiffest bent I've been on.
Wondered how it could be stiffer and not ride like a tank.

[MLB]

PaPa > wrote in news:3f20d91b$1_2
@news.chariot.net.au:

> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.
>
>
>
> --
>>--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com
>

I wondered about that. The steel V² was the stiffest bent I've been on.
Wondered how it could be stiffer and not ride like a tank.

[MLB]

"Robert Siegel" > wrote in
:

> Marci --
>
> None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people
> like the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a
> couple of hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes
> got to dealers. I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller
> effect ... and it was a struggle (for me at least) to get started
> uphill. And Atlanta is all up hill. ;-))
>
> Gator Bob Siegel
>
> "PaPa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
>> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
>> ride. It's brutal.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >--------------------------<
>> Posted via cyclingforums.com
>> http://www.cyclingforums.com
>
>

Tiller effect for sure, but you get used to that quickly.
Sluggish? Heavy? Mine sure wasn't. Fastest bent I've been on (not that
there were lots, 6 or 7)

[MLB]

"Robert Siegel" > wrote in
:

> Marci --
>
> None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people
> like the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a
> couple of hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes
> got to dealers. I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller
> effect ... and it was a struggle (for me at least) to get started
> uphill. And Atlanta is all up hill. ;-))
>
> Gator Bob Siegel
>
> "PaPa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
>> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
>> ride. It's brutal.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >--------------------------<
>> Posted via cyclingforums.com
>> http://www.cyclingforums.com
>
>

Tiller effect for sure, but you get used to that quickly.
Sluggish? Heavy? Mine sure wasn't. Fastest bent I've been on (not that
there were lots, 6 or 7)

[Marci Taylor]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.

How were you able to ride a formula at this time?? Rans says no one
exists yet. They are scheduled to come in the middle of august. Did
you ride a prototype somewhere?
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> ride. It's brutal.

How were you able to ride a formula at this time?? Rans says no one
exists yet. They are scheduled to come in the middle of august. Did
you ride a prototype somewhere?
Marci

[Robert Siegel]

My reaction to the V2 I tes-rode was influenced by bents I owned and liked:
P-38 XT; Challenge Taifun; GRR; Ti Rush.

--
Gator Bob Siegel

"MLB" > wrote in message
> Sluggish? Heavy? Mine sure wasn't. Fastest bent I've been on ...

[Robert Siegel]

My reaction to the V2 I tes-rode was influenced by bents I owned and liked:
P-38 XT; Challenge Taifun; GRR; Ti Rush.

--
Gator Bob Siegel

"MLB" > wrote in message
> Sluggish? Heavy? Mine sure wasn't. Fastest bent I've been on ...

[Marci Taylor]

Steve Christensen > wrote in message >...
> In article >, PaPa says...
> >
> >I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> >ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> >ride. It's brutal.
>
>
> That's very interesting to hear. I was considering upgrading to the Formula
> when I ordered my V2, but was put off by the possibility of a harsh ride. I
> already find the ride of a chromo V2 frame to be a bit harsher than I like,
> being used to a fully suspended SWB. And I suffer from RB at times (though
> never on my reclined Vision VR-42). So I was easily convinced that the
> potentially harsher ride of an aluminum frame, coupled with the thinner seat pad
> of the new carbon seat might NOT be the way to go.
>
> Steve Christensen

Rans states that you can order the bike with the regular seat pad and
still get the lightweight seat. I did this. I wasn't interested in
the harsher seat. For me, the lightest weight LWB possible is what
drew me to this bike. Yes, the GRR (gold rush replica) is a great
bike but I do prefer a bit higher BB to seat relation. I have always
loved the GRR but sometimes the extremely low BB gave me some knee
pain. So, again, I hope the V2 formula will provide low weight, and a
bit higher BB to seat. If I find the bike too harsh, I will just
adjust the air pressure in the tires a tiny bit and as I said, I will
have the regular seat cushion.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

Steve Christensen > wrote in message >...
> In article >, PaPa says...
> >
> >I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> >ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> >ride. It's brutal.
>
>
> That's very interesting to hear. I was considering upgrading to the Formula
> when I ordered my V2, but was put off by the possibility of a harsh ride. I
> already find the ride of a chromo V2 frame to be a bit harsher than I like,
> being used to a fully suspended SWB. And I suffer from RB at times (though
> never on my reclined Vision VR-42). So I was easily convinced that the
> potentially harsher ride of an aluminum frame, coupled with the thinner seat pad
> of the new carbon seat might NOT be the way to go.
>
> Steve Christensen

Rans states that you can order the bike with the regular seat pad and
still get the lightweight seat. I did this. I wasn't interested in
the harsher seat. For me, the lightest weight LWB possible is what
drew me to this bike. Yes, the GRR (gold rush replica) is a great
bike but I do prefer a bit higher BB to seat relation. I have always
loved the GRR but sometimes the extremely low BB gave me some knee
pain. So, again, I hope the V2 formula will provide low weight, and a
bit higher BB to seat. If I find the bike too harsh, I will just
adjust the air pressure in the tires a tiny bit and as I said, I will
have the regular seat cushion.
Marci

[Jude T. McGloin]

Good Morning Marci,
I might point out that although aluminum tends to be harsh ride, it
does provide, in the case of the V2, a stiffer lighter ride
So it depends what you are willing to sacrafice. The fastest or best
climber is often not the most comfortable.
The seat is an area of concern when it comes to weight. It is also a
concern of efficency especially when climbing.
Tiller effect on the V2 has been one of the concerns...for some.
While some can not handle, others manage it and still others shruh theirs
sholders and say....."So"? The new V2 has less tiller effect. But then I'm
one of the "So"? people. What do I know.
I will never catch up to you Marci when it comes to bents owned.
I will say the when I look at a recumbent my main thought is "Primary use"
Commuting? Day Trips? Self supported overnighters? Fast Competitive riding?
Fire Trails/light off road? Too often many complain that this or that bike
is lousy at this or that, when that is apparant from a weight, tires/wheels,
gearing etc. without even riding it.
I'm sure you will tell us how you like the V2 F and I might even
get one myself.
--
Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
1-800-586-6645
"Marci Taylor" > wrote in message
m...
> "Robert Siegel" > wrote in message
>...
> > Marci --
> >
> > None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people
like
> > the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a couple
of
> > hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes got to
dealers.
> > I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller effect ... and it
was
> > a struggle (for me at least) to get started uphill. And Atlanta is all
up
> > hill. ;-))
> >
> > Gator Bob Siegel
> >
> That is the point to the formula. It's not 32 lbs. and not sluggish.
> In fact, 26.8 lbs. is among the lightest weight bents out there. I too
> live in the hills and that is why I really don't like any bike that
> weights anymore than about the 27 lb. range. I think my Saber is
> about 27 lbs. As far as the tiller, I didn't notice it on the cromo
> version that I had. Mine was a 2001 model. I guess not every bike
> suits every person. If I don't like it, I can sell it to someone who
> does.....
> marci
> > "PaPa" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> > > ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> > > ride. It's brutal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > >--------------------------<
> > > Posted via cyclingforums.com
> > > http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Jude T. McGloin]

Good Morning Marci,
I might point out that although aluminum tends to be harsh ride, it
does provide, in the case of the V2, a stiffer lighter ride
So it depends what you are willing to sacrafice. The fastest or best
climber is often not the most comfortable.
The seat is an area of concern when it comes to weight. It is also a
concern of efficency especially when climbing.
Tiller effect on the V2 has been one of the concerns...for some.
While some can not handle, others manage it and still others shruh theirs
sholders and say....."So"? The new V2 has less tiller effect. But then I'm
one of the "So"? people. What do I know.
I will never catch up to you Marci when it comes to bents owned.
I will say the when I look at a recumbent my main thought is "Primary use"
Commuting? Day Trips? Self supported overnighters? Fast Competitive riding?
Fire Trails/light off road? Too often many complain that this or that bike
is lousy at this or that, when that is apparant from a weight, tires/wheels,
gearing etc. without even riding it.
I'm sure you will tell us how you like the V2 F and I might even
get one myself.
--
Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
1-800-586-6645
"Marci Taylor" > wrote in message
m...
> "Robert Siegel" > wrote in message
>...
> > Marci --
> >
> > None of my biz ...but ... although I respect that a great many people
like
> > the V2 ... it's not for me. I rode a V2 for (admittedly only) a couple
of
> > hours in Atlanta GA right after the first production bikes got to
dealers.
> > I hated it. I found it heavy, sluggish, with tiller effect ... and it
was
> > a struggle (for me at least) to get started uphill. And Atlanta is all
up
> > hill. ;-))
> >
> > Gator Bob Siegel
> >
> That is the point to the formula. It's not 32 lbs. and not sluggish.
> In fact, 26.8 lbs. is among the lightest weight bents out there. I too
> live in the hills and that is why I really don't like any bike that
> weights anymore than about the 27 lb. range. I think my Saber is
> about 27 lbs. As far as the tiller, I didn't notice it on the cromo
> version that I had. Mine was a 2001 model. I guess not every bike
> suits every person. If I don't like it, I can sell it to someone who
> does.....
> marci
> > "PaPa" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> > > ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> > > ride. It's brutal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > >--------------------------<
> > > Posted via cyclingforums.com
> > > http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Robert Siegel]

Some thoughts on dialing in a GRR:

* Try KneeSavers

* Small fore-to-aft seat adjustments can make a BIG difference in GRR
comfort and pedaling power.

* Set the seat to the maximum upright position ... the "correct" position
for most people, according to Gardner..

--
Gator Bob Siegel
"Marci Taylor" > wrote in message
m...
> Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >, PaPa says...
> > >
> > >I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> > >ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> > >ride. It's brutal.
> >
> >
> > That's very interesting to hear. I was considering upgrading to the
Formula
> > when I ordered my V2, but was put off by the possibility of a harsh
ride. I
> > already find the ride of a chromo V2 frame to be a bit harsher than I
like,
> > being used to a fully suspended SWB. And I suffer from RB at times
(though
> > never on my reclined Vision VR-42). So I was easily convinced that the
> > potentially harsher ride of an aluminum frame, coupled with the thinner
seat pad
> > of the new carbon seat might NOT be the way to go.
> >
> > Steve Christensen
>
> Rans states that you can order the bike with the regular seat pad and
> still get the lightweight seat. I did this. I wasn't interested in
> the harsher seat. For me, the lightest weight LWB possible is what
> drew me to this bike. Yes, the GRR (gold rush replica) is a great
> bike but I do prefer a bit higher BB to seat relation. I have always
> loved the GRR but sometimes the extremely low BB gave me some knee
> pain. So, again, I hope the V2 formula will provide low weight, and a
> bit higher BB to seat. If I find the bike too harsh, I will just
> adjust the air pressure in the tires a tiny bit and as I said, I will
> have the regular seat cushion.
> Marci

[Robert Siegel]

Some thoughts on dialing in a GRR:

* Try KneeSavers

* Small fore-to-aft seat adjustments can make a BIG difference in GRR
comfort and pedaling power.

* Set the seat to the maximum upright position ... the "correct" position
for most people, according to Gardner..

--
Gator Bob Siegel
"Marci Taylor" > wrote in message
m...
> Steve Christensen > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >, PaPa says...
> > >
> > >I won't reveal the details Marci, but... i'm betting the weight won't
> > >ultimately be THE issue. Simply put, I like the Formula, but hate the
> > >ride. It's brutal.
> >
> >
> > That's very interesting to hear. I was considering upgrading to the
Formula
> > when I ordered my V2, but was put off by the possibility of a harsh
ride. I
> > already find the ride of a chromo V2 frame to be a bit harsher than I
like,
> > being used to a fully suspended SWB. And I suffer from RB at times
(though
> > never on my reclined Vision VR-42). So I was easily convinced that the
> > potentially harsher ride of an aluminum frame, coupled with the thinner
seat pad
> > of the new carbon seat might NOT be the way to go.
> >
> > Steve Christensen
>
> Rans states that you can order the bike with the regular seat pad and
> still get the lightweight seat. I did this. I wasn't interested in
> the harsher seat. For me, the lightest weight LWB possible is what
> drew me to this bike. Yes, the GRR (gold rush replica) is a great
> bike but I do prefer a bit higher BB to seat relation. I have always
> loved the GRR but sometimes the extremely low BB gave me some knee
> pain. So, again, I hope the V2 formula will provide low weight, and a
> bit higher BB to seat. If I find the bike too harsh, I will just
> adjust the air pressure in the tires a tiny bit and as I said, I will
> have the regular seat cushion.
> Marci

[PaPa]

Robert Siegel wrote:
> Some thoughts on dialing in a GRR:
> * Try KneeSavers
> * Small fore-to-aft seat adjustments can make a BIG difference in GRR
> comfort and pedaling power.
> * Set the seat to the maximum upright position ... the "correct"
> position for most people, according to Gardner..




I strongly disagree....

1. A 3 to 5 grand bike should NOT need "kneesavers"

2. Setting the seat to maximum upright position is primary cause of
"recumbent"



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[PaPa]

Robert Siegel wrote:
> Some thoughts on dialing in a GRR:
> * Try KneeSavers
> * Small fore-to-aft seat adjustments can make a BIG difference in GRR
> comfort and pedaling power.
> * Set the seat to the maximum upright position ... the "correct"
> position for most people, according to Gardner..




I strongly disagree....

1. A 3 to 5 grand bike should NOT need "kneesavers"

2. Setting the seat to maximum upright position is primary cause of
"recumbent"



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Marci Taylor]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> Marci, No specifics please... but where (geographicly) are you located?
> I'm in the north west and would gladly let you grind a little rubber off
> my LWB ti/cf for an hour or two. It has a 64" wb, a 14.5" bb height, 18"
> seat height and weights well below the Velocity. Two issues worth
> mentioning; First, it's not for sale. And second, it will not accomidate
> a x-seam longer than 40.5". I do have a steel version but it isn't
> nearly as much fun. I'm planning Battle Mountain and Interbike this
> fall, so if your gonna be at either, let me know. PaPa

Hi:
I am in Redding, California. It's extreme northern Ca, just a couple
of hours from the oregon border. Thanks for the offer though, it
sounds like an awesome bike. By the way, my x-seam is 39.5 so the bike
would have fit.
Marci

[Marci Taylor]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> Marci, No specifics please... but where (geographicly) are you located?
> I'm in the north west and would gladly let you grind a little rubber off
> my LWB ti/cf for an hour or two. It has a 64" wb, a 14.5" bb height, 18"
> seat height and weights well below the Velocity. Two issues worth
> mentioning; First, it's not for sale. And second, it will not accomidate
> a x-seam longer than 40.5". I do have a steel version but it isn't
> nearly as much fun. I'm planning Battle Mountain and Interbike this
> fall, so if your gonna be at either, let me know. PaPa

Hi:
I am in Redding, California. It's extreme northern Ca, just a couple
of hours from the oregon border. Thanks for the offer though, it
sounds like an awesome bike. By the way, my x-seam is 39.5 so the bike
would have fit.
Marci

[john riley]

I will be at Interbike. Is this a commercial product? Will you have a
booth? If so, email me your company name so I can look you up.

Pictures of this bike?

John Riley
johnriley1 (at) rogers.com

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> Marci, No specifics please... but where (geographicly) are you located?
> I'm in the north west and would gladly let you grind a little rubber off
> my LWB ti/cf for an hour or two. It has a 64" wb, a 14.5" bb height, 18"
> seat height and weights well below the Velocity. Two issues worth
> mentioning; First, it's not for sale. And second, it will not accomidate
> a x-seam longer than 40.5". I do have a steel version but it isn't
> nearly as much fun. I'm planning Battle Mountain and Interbike this
> fall, so if your gonna be at either, let me know. PaPa

[john riley]

I will be at Interbike. Is this a commercial product? Will you have a
booth? If so, email me your company name so I can look you up.

Pictures of this bike?

John Riley
johnriley1 (at) rogers.com

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> Marci, No specifics please... but where (geographicly) are you located?
> I'm in the north west and would gladly let you grind a little rubber off
> my LWB ti/cf for an hour or two. It has a 64" wb, a 14.5" bb height, 18"
> seat height and weights well below the Velocity. Two issues worth
> mentioning; First, it's not for sale. And second, it will not accomidate
> a x-seam longer than 40.5". I do have a steel version but it isn't
> nearly as much fun. I'm planning Battle Mountain and Interbike this
> fall, so if your gonna be at either, let me know. PaPa

[TwoYearDouble]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> An interesting note; take a look at the weights of the LWB Rotator
> Pursuit: http://rotatorrecumbent.com/levels.html#level1
>
> Level one is chromoly and weights 31 pounds. Level two is also chromoly
> but it's weight is 5 pounds lighter (26 lbs).
>
> It's easy to see that component selection can, and often does, have a
> significantly greater effect on total weight than frame composition.

I was wondering about this - does anyone know what the major
component(s) are that contribute to the substantial difference of 5
lbs across the two models? What would the weight difference between
the alloy and Velocity AeroHeat rims be?

[TwoYearDouble]

PaPa > wrote in message >...
> An interesting note; take a look at the weights of the LWB Rotator
> Pursuit: http://rotatorrecumbent.com/levels.html#level1
>
> Level one is chromoly and weights 31 pounds. Level two is also chromoly
> but it's weight is 5 pounds lighter (26 lbs).
>
> It's easy to see that component selection can, and often does, have a
> significantly greater effect on total weight than frame composition.

I was wondering about this - does anyone know what the major
component(s) are that contribute to the substantial difference of 5
lbs across the two models? What would the weight difference between
the alloy and Velocity AeroHeat rims be?

[PaPa]

PaPa wrote:
> A reliable source said the bare frame aluminum Formula frame is 5.7
> pounds, and the steel is almost exactly two pounds heavier. Didn't
> discuss componutes.




Hit the wrong key.... should be 5.6 pounds...



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[PaPa]

Twoyeardouble wrote:
> I was wondering about this - does anyone know what the major
> component(s) are that contribute to the substantial difference of 5 lbs
> across the two models? What would the weight difference between the
> alloy and Velocity AeroHeat rims be?



A reliable source said the bare frame aluminum Formula frame is 5.7
pounds, and the steel is almost exactly two pounds heavier. Didn't
discuss componutes.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[john riley]

(TwoYearDouble) wrote in message >...

> I was wondering about this - does anyone know what the major
> component(s) are that contribute to the substantial difference of 5
> lbs across the two models? What would the weight difference between
> the alloy and Velocity AeroHeat rims be?

The different seat pan and pad help. The pad alone saves 11.2 oz
according to the Rans website.

John Riley

[Steve Christensen]

In article >, PaPa says...
>
>PaPa wrote:
> > A reliable source said the bare frame aluminum Formula frame is 5.7
> > pounds, and the steel is almost exactly two pounds heavier. Didn't
> > discuss componutes.
>
>Hit the wrong key.... should be 5.6 pounds.


Sure doesn't sound like it all adds up. They say the Formula is 4.2 lbs lighter
(from the web site) and that the new seat saves 1.5 lbs (also from the web
site). If the frame is 2 of those 4.2 lbs, that leave just 11 oz. (0.7 lbs)
difference for all of the components, including the wheels.

Sure seems as if the upgraded components and wheels ought to save more than that
in weight. But hey, none of us have any data here, so what do we know.

Steve Christensen