Better handling?

[Ken Marcet]

Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other bikes.
Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
and thought it seemed to handle well too.

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/

[Mark Leuck]

"Ken Marcet" > wrote in message
...
> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
bikes.
> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
> and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>
> Ken

In my opinion a recumbent has slightly worse handling than a standard cycle,
others here may disagree

[Mark Leuck]

"Ken Marcet" > wrote in message
...
> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
bikes.
> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
> and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>
> Ken
>
> --
> More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/

Nice blog, I'm also considering the same thing you mention on todays post

[Tom Sherman]

Ken Marcet wrote:

> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other bikes.
> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
> and thought it seemed to handle well too.

Certainly some recumbents handle very well, e.g. Earth Cycles Sunset
Lowracer, RANS Rocket, while others do not. However, the handling is so
different from an upright bicycle, that I really would not make direct
comparisons.

Some recumbents do handle poorly, e.g. Hypercycles and their
evolutionary designs such as the Blackbent III.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[skip]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Marcet wrote:
>
>> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
>> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
>> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
>> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
>> bikes.
>> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
>> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb
>> once
>> and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>
> Certainly some recumbents handle very well, e.g. Earth Cycles Sunset
> Lowracer, RANS Rocket, while others do not. However, the handling is so
> different from an upright bicycle, that I really would not make direct
> comparisons.
>
> Some recumbents do handle poorly, e.g. Hypercycles and their evolutionary
> designs such as the Blackbent III.
>
> --
The first recumbent I rode was a Hypercycle. It was a nice handling bike
and was exceptionally easy for a beginner to ride. There is this myth that
it was a bad handling bike. I rode one for a summer and disagree. Have you
ridden one?

The Blackbent III has a reputation, and I believe it is deserved, of being
an evil handling, dangerous bike. I don't consider it to be part of the
evolutionary design of the Hypercycle. I believe it was designed by the
owner of the Recumbent Barn who is an account by profession. The original
Blackbent was in the Hypercycle evolutionary design path. It was designed
and made by S&B. The partners in S&B were part of the Hypercycle company
along with Milt Turner. The Blackbent I was a refined successor to the
Hypercycle and by all reports reported to be a good handling bike.

All that said Tom's original point is valid. There is a lot of variation in
recumbent design. Some handle wonderfully, others are good, and a few are
actually bad. The bad ones don't sell well and soon vanish from the market
place. There are not so many design variations in DF design so their
handling is fairly predictable.

I am happy to hear Ken Marcet's home built came well. If I could do that I
would.

skip

[Tom Sherman]

$kip wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ken Marcet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
>>>standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
>>>recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
>>>times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
>>>bikes.
>>>Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
>>>first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb
>>>once
>>>and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>>
>>Certainly some recumbents handle very well, e.g. Earth Cycles Sunset
>>Lowracer, RANS Rocket, while others do not. However, the handling is so
>>different from an upright bicycle, that I really would not make direct
>>comparisons.
>>
>>Some recumbents do handle poorly, e.g. Hypercycles and their evolutionary
>>designs such as the Blackbent III.
>>
>>--
>
> The first recumbent I rode was a Hypercycle. It was a nice handling bike
> and was exceptionally easy for a beginner to ride. There is this myth that
> it was a bad handling bike. I rode one for a summer and disagree. Have you
> ridden one?...

No, but I have heard from people with respected judgement who have
ridden them and disaproved strongly of the handling, expecially during
braking and over bumps. I have ridden Turners and their ilk, and the
handling did not inspire confidence.

> The Blackbent III has a reputation, and I believe it is deserved, of being
> an evil handling, dangerous bike. I don't consider it to be part of the
> evolutionary design of the Hypercycle. I believe it was designed by the
> owner of the Recumbent Barn who is an account by profession....

At one time the name of the business was "Recumbant Barn" (sic).

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[skip]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> $kip wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Ken Marcet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
>>>>standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
>>>>recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than
>>>>several
>>>>times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
>>>>bikes.
>>>>Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is
>>>>my
>>>>first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb
>>>>once
>>>>and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>>>
>>>Certainly some recumbents handle very well, e.g. Earth Cycles Sunset
>>>Lowracer, RANS Rocket, while others do not. However, the handling is so
>>>different from an upright bicycle, that I really would not make direct
>>>comparisons.
>>>
>>>Some recumbents do handle poorly, e.g. Hypercycles and their evolutionary
>>>designs such as the Blackbent III.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>> The first recumbent I rode was a Hypercycle. It was a nice handling bike
>> and was exceptionally easy for a beginner to ride. There is this myth
>> that it was a bad handling bike. I rode one for a summer and disagree.
>> Have you ridden one?...
>
> No, but I have heard from people with respected judgement who have ridden
> them and disaproved strongly of the handling, expecially during braking
> and over bumps. I have ridden Turners and their ilk, and the handling did
> not inspire confidence.

The one I rode for a summer braked normally and the way it took bumps didn't
seem to be out of the ordinary, so I'm not sure what your source with
respected judgement was talking about. The bike didn't have a lot of frame
to absorb shock and the fiberglass bucket seat had a thin pad, so yes, you
could sure feel the bumps up and down your spine and that got tiresome after
a while.


>
>> The Blackbent III has a reputation, and I believe it is deserved, of
>> being an evil handling, dangerous bike. I don't consider it to be part of
>> the evolutionary design of the Hypercycle. I believe it was designed by
>> the owner of the Recumbent Barn who is an account by profession....
>
> At one time the name of the business was "Recumbant Barn" (sic).
>
> --

If someone can't spell the name of the thing they are designing you might be
well advised to proceed with caution before getting too involved with that
item.

skip

[Peter Clinch]

Ken Marcet wrote:
> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb?

"Recumbents" covers a lot of ground in design: I don't think you can
generalise that much.
But in any case, what exactly is "better handling"? I think my
Streetmachine GT handles fast curves down hills on roads much better
than my MTB, but OTOH my mtb handles steep climbs on rough ground a lot
better than the 'bent. Which one is "better" depends what you're after.

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

[Dex]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:30:03 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>Ken Marcet wrote:
>> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
>> standard upright road cycle or mtb?
>
>"Recumbents" covers a lot of ground in design: I don't think you can
>generalise that much.
>But in any case, what exactly is "better handling"? I think my
>Streetmachine GT handles fast curves down hills on roads much better
>than my MTB, but OTOH my mtb handles steep climbs on rough ground a lot
>better than the 'bent. Which one is "better" depends what you're after.
>
>Pete.


I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
under-seat steering and a Rans Screamer tandem.
Regards, Dex Henschel

[Jon Meinecke]

"Dex" > wrote in message
>
> I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
> there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
> you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
> under-seat steering and a Rans Screamer tandem.

On many recumbent bikes you can press between pedals
and seatback to unload the body weight on the seat bottom
somewhat. It's possible to rise completely off the seat
bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...

Tougher with more reclined seating. Haven't come up
with a very satisfactory mode for dealing with rough
roads on my Volae Sport. Pulling on the handle bars
helps only a bit as does bracing between pedals and
seatback. Anyone riding a high-bottom bracket
SWB have any suggestions?

Jon Meinecke

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

If race results have any bearing on handling....
I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
Fastest lap or highest average speed
At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
with a 80% win rate
LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
Speedy


Ken Marcet wrote:

> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other bikes.
> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
> and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>
> Ken
>
> --
> More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Tom Sherman]

Jon Meinecke wrote:

> "Dex" > wrote in message
>
>>I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
>>there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
>>you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
>>under-seat steering and a R[ANS] Screamer tandem.
>
>
> On many recumbent bikes you can press between pedals
> and seatback to unload the body weight on the seat bottom
> somewhat. It's possible to rise completely off the seat
> bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
> on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...
>
> Tougher with more reclined seating. Haven't come up
> with a very satisfactory mode for dealing with rough
> roads on my Volae Sport. Pulling on the handle bars
> helps only a bit as does bracing between pedals and
> seatback. Anyone riding a high-bottom bracket
> SWB have any suggestions?

I can easily lift myself off the seat on my Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer
[TM] which has a 38 degree seat angle and a BB approximately 16 cm
(~6-1/2") above seat height. I can see that it would be hard to do with
a hard-shell seat reclined in the mid 20 degree range.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[Tom Sherman]

S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent" wrote:

> If race results have any bearing on handling....
> I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
> Fastest lap or highest average speed
> At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
> with a 80% win rate
> LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
> I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
> Speedy

Without split times around the corners, I would hesitate to extrapolate
to much from this, since the Rotator bikes should have significant
straight-line speed advantages over the DF bikes due to decreased
aerodynamic drag.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

[Freewheeling]

Ken:

"Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard to
argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver on
a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster in
the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a recumbent
and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long sweeping
turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
longer wheelbase.


"Ken Marcet" > wrote in message
...
> Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
> standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
> recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
> times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
> bikes.
> Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
> first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
> and thought it seemed to handle well too.
>
> Ken
>
> --
> More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/
>

[Freewheeling]

"Jon Meinecke" > wrote in message
news:1109609445.85044007dbbef0b3e026028ff5e843c7@t eranews...
> "Dex" > wrote in message
>>
>> I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
>> there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
>> you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
>> under-seat steering and a Rans Screamer tandem.
>
> On many recumbent bikes you can press between pedals
> and seatback to unload the body weight on the seat bottom
> somewhat. It's possible to rise completely off the seat
> bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
> on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...

This sounds like a perfect recipe for a back injury.

>
> Tougher with more reclined seating. Haven't come up
> with a very satisfactory mode for dealing with rough
> roads on my Volae Sport. Pulling on the handle bars
> helps only a bit as does bracing between pedals and
> seatback. Anyone riding a high-bottom bracket
> SWB have any suggestions?
>
> Jon Meinecke
>
>
>

[Jon Meinecke]

"Freewheeling" > wrote
>
> "Jon Meinecke" > wrote in message
> >
> > It's possible to rise completely off the seat
> > bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
> > on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...
>
> This sounds like a perfect recipe for a back injury.

Then you misconstrue the body position that results.

With the Easy Racer Koolback seat, is it possible
to slide up the seatback and off the seat by pressing
with legs against pedals. This is most easily done
while coasting and does not result in a position that
invites back injury.

One need not rise far enough to lock knees, but rather
only an inch or so to unload seat slightly. Body weight
may thus be suspended between pedals and seat back.
By keeping knees bent, a certain amount of the bump/
shock may be absorbed or at least shifted from
bottom and lower back.

Road bump shock delivered through the seat to lower
back may aggravate degenerative disc conditions. I
know. I have S5-L1 disc/nerve damage. The riding
position of an upright bike particularly with drop bars
may open the lower back to even more effect from
such impact. I know. I was riding an upright when
my disc problems became acute.

A bike with a supportive backrest and rear suspension
is recommended for such conditions. Can you guess
what sort of recumbent someone with such condition
and limited budget might buy in 1998?

It is possible to perform the rising-from-seat maneuver
on that bike, too, though not as "sweetly" as a year
or so later...

Jon Meinecke

[Bill Bushnell]

Freewheeling > wrote:
> "Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
> maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
> free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard to
> argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver on
> a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster in
> the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
> riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a recumbent
> and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
> only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long sweeping
> turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
> longer wheelbase.

A lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase will cause the bike to
fall into the turns faster. Think of the example of balancing your
favorite long-handled garden tool with the heavy part high vs. the
heavy part low. With the heavy part high the tool is much easier to
balance. So it goes with bicycles. This works to a low, long
recumbent's advantage on twisty, technical downhills, making it
easier to change direction on tight S-curves, and makes it somewhat
more difficult to maintain straight travel on the broad and wide or
near the stall speed, about 2 mph on something like a Pursuit or
Gold Rush. I suspect that riding rollers is more difficult on a
long, low recumbent because of its relative instability to an upright
bike. A number of years ago Bill Patterson posted to the HPV list a
good explanation of the combination of wheelbase, weight
distribution, COG (center of gravity) height, forward velocity, and
trail that summarized what I've observed first-hand.

Jobst Brandt and I ride the same local roads, and I am fairly certain
I have passed at least 20 times as many "slower upright cyclists"
descending as he has passed "slower recumbent cyclists" descending.
This doesn't say much about which kind of bike is faster, and I
suspect that at the limit it's a wash, depending more on the operator
than anything else. Technical descending is largely a mental
exercise limited by one's familiarity with the road, one's comfort
level when leaning the bike near the slip-out angle, and one's
willingness to descend at a speed such that one's stopping distance
exceeds one's vision distance in the corners.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[S. Delaire \Rotatorrecumbent\]

With the fact that the pedals can't strike the ground and the lower CoG the
Pursuit speed thru corners is probably higher.
Speedy

Tom Sherman wrote:

> S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent" wrote:
>
> > If race results have any bearing on handling....
> > I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
> > Fastest lap or highest average speed
> > At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
> > with a 80% win rate
> > LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
> > I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
> > Speedy
>
> Without split times around the corners, I would hesitate to extrapolate
> to much from this, since the Rotator bikes should have significant
> straight-line speed advantages over the DF bikes due to decreased
> aerodynamic drag.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[bentbrian]

One of the fun things about a 'bent if road conditions are good is to
put the hammer down as you go through a turn. It is a blast. A lot more
fun than coasting through a turn.


--
bentbrian

[Freewheeling]

"Bill Bushnell" > wrote in message
...
> Freewheeling > wrote:
>> "Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
>> maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
>> free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard
>> to
>> argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver
>> on
>> a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster
>> in
>> the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
>> riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a
>> recumbent
>> and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
>> only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long
>> sweeping
>> turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
>> longer wheelbase.
>
> A lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase will cause the bike to
> fall into the turns faster. Think of the example of balancing your
> favorite long-handled garden tool with the heavy part high vs. the
> heavy part low. With the heavy part high the tool is much easier to
> balance. So it goes with bicycles. This works to a low, long
> recumbent's advantage on twisty, technical downhills, making it
> easier to change direction on tight S-curves, and makes it somewhat
> more difficult to maintain straight travel on the broad and wide or
> near the stall speed, about 2 mph on something like a Pursuit or
> Gold Rush.

No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional centered
position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical descents, which is
simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be done. Very few sportif riders
do this of course, so your comments may have some validity in that sort of
situation... but under typical road racing conditions against pros? No way.

> I suspect that riding rollers is more difficult on a
> long, low recumbent because of its relative instability to an upright
> bike. A number of years ago Bill Patterson posted to the HPV list a
> good explanation of the combination of wheelbase, weight
> distribution, COG (center of gravity) height, forward velocity, and
> trail that summarized what I've observed first-hand.

I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with
the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to stand
on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the top
to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a divice,
although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner to
the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of course
this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs are
"more maneuverable."

There are other disadvantages for recumbents, one of which is often not
being able to actually see the and monitor the position of the wheel
relative to the edge of the rollers. I considered modifying the rollers so
that the sound of wheel against roller would provide a sense of whether or
not you are centered or nearing an edge. Still, it's possible to ride
rollers on a recumbent. It took me close to a year to learn it, but I could
ride for an hour at a time without touching a support. The main reason I no
longer do it is that it causes my downstairs neighbor to go ballistic.
Apartment living...


>
> Jobst Brandt and I ride the same local roads, and I am fairly certain
> I have passed at least 20 times as many "slower upright cyclists"
> descending as he has passed "slower recumbent cyclists" descending.
> This doesn't say much about which kind of bike is faster, and I
> suspect that at the limit it's a wash, depending more on the operator
> than anything else. Technical descending is largely a mental
> exercise limited by one's familiarity with the road, one's comfort
> level when leaning the bike near the slip-out angle, and one's
> willingness to descend at a speed such that one's stopping distance
> exceeds one's vision distance in the corners.
>
> --
> Bill Bushnell
> http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[Bill Bushnell]

Freewheeling > wrote:

> No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional
> centered position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical
> descents, which is simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be
> done. Very few sportif riders do this of course, so your comments
> may have some validity in that sort of situation... but under
> typical road racing conditions against pros? No way.

Models with upright seating positions (e.g. Easy Racers) allow one a
fair degree of freedom to shift weight. I often lean forward when
descending to put more weight over the front wheel or backward when
ascending to maintain rear wheel traction. Doing this is necessary
when one is riding on dirt roads or trails where traction is
uncertain.

Pros are pros for a variety of reasons, but outstanding technical
descending skills is not high on the list. Road races are seldom won
on a technical descent.

> I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with
> the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to stand
> on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the top
> to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a divice,
> although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner to
> the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of course
> this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs are
> "more maneuverable."

I agree that DF's are easier to balance and to maneuver at low speed.

At higher speeds, the time required to right oneself from a fall (an
initiation of a steering input) becomes shorter as forward speed
increases. At some forward speed this time becomes short enough that
the operator does not find it difficult to maintain stability. On
most DF bikes, this speed is close to zero. On most LWB recumbents
this is near walking speed. At typical descending speeds this kind
of instability is irrelevant.

I stand by my earlier statement in this thread that technical
descending speed is dependent mostly on the operator's knowledge of
the road, skill on the chosen bike, and risk tolerance.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[Freewheeling]

"Bill Bushnell" > wrote in message
...
> Freewheeling > wrote:
>
>> No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional
>> centered position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical
>> descents, which is simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be
>> done. Very few sportif riders do this of course, so your comments
>> may have some validity in that sort of situation... but under
>> typical road racing conditions against pros? No way.
>
> Models with upright seating positions (e.g. Easy Racers) allow one a
> fair degree of freedom to shift weight. I often lean forward when
> descending to put more weight over the front wheel or backward when
> ascending to maintain rear wheel traction. Doing this is necessary
> when one is riding on dirt roads or trails where traction is
> uncertain.
>
> Pros are pros for a variety of reasons, but outstanding technical
> descending skills is not high on the list. Road races are seldom won
> on a technical descent.
>
>> I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with
>> the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to
>> stand
>> on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the
>> top
>> to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a
>> divice,
>> although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner
>> to
>> the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of
>> course
>> this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs
>> are
>> "more maneuverable."
>
> I agree that DF's are easier to balance and to maneuver at low speed.
>
> At higher speeds, the time required to right oneself from a fall (an
> initiation of a steering input) becomes shorter as forward speed
> increases. At some forward speed this time becomes short enough that
> the operator does not find it difficult to maintain stability. On
> most DF bikes, this speed is close to zero. On most LWB recumbents
> this is near walking speed. At typical descending speeds this kind
> of instability is irrelevant.
>
> I stand by my earlier statement in this thread that technical
> descending speed is dependent mostly on the operator's knowledge of
> the road, skill on the chosen bike, and risk tolerance.

Bill:

And I stand by my observation that those elements of balance and control
relevant at low speeds are also relevant at higher speeds, though the
feedback characteristics may be more subtle. I also think there are a lot
of pro cyclists who would disagree with the implication that descending is
relatively unimportant, though its clearly outweighed by other factors such
as climbing ability. Of course technical differences between riders on
descents are minimized because everyone basically rides the same bike and
muscular power and endurance are both less critical.

I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's
necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just
amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that plays
no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The
regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and
bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about 60
rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation of
a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than
modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion. (The
horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly
impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing to
acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using
slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60 rpm
barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared.

But this was just one of a number of rather unexpected emergent
difficulties, and basically I just concluded that we're probably designed to
move better, and more effectively, in an upright position. It's not that
one can't compensate, and ride a recumbent well, and fast. But all else
being equal maneuverability of a DF is just significantly greater than a
recumbent. And obviously the more reclined you are the more pronounced the
difference.

The primary advantage of recumbents is their lower aerodynamic drag. I'd
also say that they're more comfortable for longer rides, which is probably
true for the average rider. But this latter advantage seems to disappear at
distances much greater than 100 miles. According to some members of this
list who ride randonneur events on both recumbents and uprights, the
recumbent is just as demanding, if not more so. (I can't verify this
myself, so have to rely on their testimony. I'm insufficiently insane to
ride in randonneur events.)

>
> --
> Bill Bushnell
> http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[Bill Bushnell]

Freewheeling > wrote:

> I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's
> necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just
> amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that plays
> no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The
> regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and
> bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about 60
> rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation of
> a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than
> modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion. (The
> horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly
> impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing to
> acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using
> slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60 rpm
> barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared.

I was discussing descending on roads where centrifugal force from a
change of direction counters the bike's tendency to topple when
leaning. The longer wheelbase of a LWB recumbent causes a longer
delay between the initiation of a lean and its correction. The lower
center of gravity causes the lean to occur more quickly. Both of
these factors make a low, LWB recumbent less stable at low speeds.
For an upright bike the stall speed is close to zero. For a Gold
Rush or similar, it is closer to 2 or 3 mph, depending on the skill
of the operator. As speed increases the effect of this low-speed
instability gradually disappears, which is why I believe descending
skills have less to do with the bike (assuming the bike is high-speed
stable) and more to do with the operator's state of mind.

I believe that riding rollers is a low-speed stability issue,
complicated perhaps by the factors you mention above. There is no
change of direction when one initiates a "turn" on rollers, so the
centrifugal force is absent. Once the bike starts to topple there is
no countering force to right it. Those whom I have observed
attempting to ride a recumbent on rollers have found doing so
difficult at best.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[[email protected]]

Bill Bushnell wrote:
> Freewheeling > wrote:
>

I think you're both not acknowledging that an upright rider can use his
legs to lean the bike, which applies some steering input. This is far
less possible on a recumbent, since the legs are parallel to the roll
axis.

Have either of you tried to ride an upright on rollers equipped with
one of the hornless "Easy Seat"-type seats? Or ridden one so equipped
no-hands? Try it- you'll find out how much of upright's steering and
balance can be input through the legs.

Jeff

[Freewheeling]

"Bill Bushnell" > wrote in message
...
> Freewheeling > wrote:
>
>> I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's
>> necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just
>> amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that
>> plays
>> no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The
>> regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and
>> bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about
>> 60
>> rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation
>> of
>> a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than
>> modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion.
>> (The
>> horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly
>> impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing
>> to
>> acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using
>> slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60
>> rpm
>> barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared.
>
> I was discussing descending on roads where centrifugal force from a
> change of direction counters the bike's tendency to topple when
> leaning. The longer wheelbase of a LWB recumbent causes a longer
> delay between the initiation of a lean and its correction. The lower
> center of gravity causes the lean to occur more quickly. Both of
> these factors make a low, LWB recumbent less stable at low speeds.

But if I understand the situation correctly, we're are talking here about
high speeds, rather than low speeds. The issue is therefore more about
"holding the road" than about low speed stability.

> For an upright bike the stall speed is close to zero. For a Gold
> Rush or similar, it is closer to 2 or 3 mph, depending on the skill
> of the operator. As speed increases the effect of this low-speed
> instability gradually disappears, which is why I believe descending
> skills have less to do with the bike (assuming the bike is high-speed
> stable) and more to do with the operator's state of mind.

Again, if the issue is "holding the road" then the objective would be to
counter the centrifugal force without "leaning." Or, in other words, being
able to "counte-lean." I think Brandt's point (and mine, if I follow him
correctly) is that this is simply impossible on a recumbent.

>
> I believe that riding rollers is a low-speed stability issue,
> complicated perhaps by the factors you mention above. There is no
> change of direction when one initiates a "turn" on rollers, so the
> centrifugal force is absent.

One question: Have you ever ridden rollers? Very complicated situation.
It's not that tough to get up to speed either on a recumbent or an upright
(once you break through the feedback/amplitude problem).

> Once the bike starts to topple there is
> no countering force to right it. Those whom I have observed
> attempting to ride a recumbent on rollers have found doing so
> difficult at best.

You have to be much more vigilant, and correct much more quickly, that's for
sure. But that's at both low and high speeds.

>
> --
> Bill Bushnell
> http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

[Freewheeling]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bill Bushnell wrote:
>> Freewheeling > wrote:
>>
>
> I think you're both not acknowledging that an upright rider can use his
> legs to lean the bike, which applies some steering input. This is far
> less possible on a recumbent, since the legs are parallel to the roll
> axis.

Well, that's essentially what I mean by a "counter-lean." But it's not just
steering, it's a matter of being able to steer without excessive lean so
that the bike holds the road better in a technical turn at high speed.

>
> Have either of you tried to ride an upright on rollers equipped with
> one of the hornless "Easy Seat"-type seats? Or ridden one so equipped
> no-hands? Try it- you'll find out how much of upright's steering and
> balance can be input through the legs.

Good point. By the way, one way to stabilize a recumbent if you start to
fall is to unclip and put your legs out to the side, and down. But be
careful not to touch the ground because leg suck is no fun at all.

>
> Jeff
>

[Bill Bushnell]

In article <gI6Yd.34058$QQ3.5636@trnddc02>,
"Freewheeling" > wrote:

> But if I understand the situation correctly, we're are talking here about
> high speeds, rather than low speeds. The issue is therefore more about
> "holding the road" than about low speed stability.
>
>
> Again, if the issue is "holding the road" then the objective would be to
> counter the centrifugal force without "leaning." Or, in other words, being
> able to "counte-lean." I think Brandt's point (and mine, if I follow him
> correctly) is that this is simply impossible on a recumbent.

Single track vehicles must lean when cornering otherwise they would
topple to the outside of the corner. Two-wheeled recumbents lean in
high speed corners just like upright bikes.

High speed cornering near the limit of traction is best done without any
sticking out of the knees or other "body english" (or pedaling, for that
matter). Brandt mentions this in his article under "Lean the Bicycle,
the Rider, or Both":

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/descending.html

I'm not sure what your overall point is. Holding the road is a function
of tire grip and road surface. Last time I checked, tires for
recumbents were made of the same stuff as road bike tires, differing in
some cases only by size, and roads are no different where recumbents are
ridden.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://www.pobox.com/~bushnell/