|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/14/2011 4:19 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed*
World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/13/2011 4:59 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: But there is a trend in Montreal that is starting to concern me. I went for a rec ride yesterday morning and in 2 hours I actually saw 3 bents. Now I'm nervous. Wow, must be a Canadian thing, like poutine. Recumbents have become rarer and rarer in the U.S.. It was a cute fad, but the disadvantages of recumbents, especially for vehicular cycling, are so overwhelming that most of the owners went back to regular bikes. Yet another recumbent "expert" that knows nothing. Oh wait, it is Scharf. No wonder then. If Scharf had a clue, he would know that a recumbent's natural environment *IS* vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling does *not* require jumping curbs and other such silliness (sorry Dan O). This caused recumbent manufacturers to go out of business. Nonsense. Those that went out of business were due to inadequate capitalization, poor management, personal misfortune, and/or trying to expand production too rapidly. Several manufacturers are still around (e.g. RANS, Easy Racers) that started in the late 1970's or early 1980's, and plenty of new manufacturers (e.g. Catrike, Volae, Bacchetta) have entered the market to replace those that failed. Recumbents are great for long distance touring, with several key advantages, but you see fewer and fewer commuters using them. Maybe Scharf is just promoting fiction as fact, as is his wont. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On May 14, 2:41 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 5/14/2011 4:19 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed* World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/13/2011 4:59 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: But there is a trend in Montreal that is starting to concern me. I went for a rec ride yesterday morning and in 2 hours I actually saw 3 bents.. Now I'm nervous. Wow, must be a Canadian thing, like poutine. Recumbents have become rarer and rarer in the U.S.. It was a cute fad, but the disadvantages of recumbents, especially for vehicular cycling, are so overwhelming that most of the owners went back to regular bikes. Yet another recumbent "expert" that knows nothing. Oh wait, it is Scharf. No wonder then. If Scharf had a clue, he would know that a recumbent's natural environment *IS* vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling does *not* require jumping curbs and other such silliness (sorry Dan O). (No sweat :-) There's nothing about my methods that necessarily *requires* jumping curbs, etc; I could get around just fine playing car. But versatile maneuvers are a very handy capability, and more fun. This caused recumbent manufacturers to go out of business. Nonsense. Those that went out of business were due to inadequate capitalization, poor management, personal misfortune, and/or trying to expand production too rapidly. Several manufacturers are still around (e.g. RANS, Easy Racers) that started in the late 1970's or early 1980's, and plenty of new manufacturers (e.g. Catrike, Volae, Bacchetta) have entered the market to replace those that failed. Recumbents are great for long distance touring, with several key advantages, but you see fewer and fewer commuters using them. Maybe Scharf is just promoting fiction as fact, as is his wont. Actually I see a lot of people on recumbents in my area (considering how few bikes I see at all) - almost all of them in town, so presumably commuting (since they don't seem really recreational or utilitarian). I kind of think they look rather silly, myself, but I'm plenty weird. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/14/2011 11:40 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed*
World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/14/2011 8:24 PM, Dan O wrote: Actually I see a lot of people on recumbents in my area (considering how few bikes I see at all) - almost all of them in town, so presumably commuting (since they don't seem really recreational or utilitarian). I kind of think they look rather silly, myself, but I'm plenty weird. We used to see a lot in the Bay Area as well. It was a fad taken up mainly by those that wanted something "different," but it didn't last. Scharf is again pulling fiction out of his arse, and presenting it as fact. Not one 'bent rider I have known had wanting "something different" as a primary motivation; in fact, most would rather be able to ride *without* all the attention. 'Bents are bought for comfort, and/or speed, or in the case of trikes, eliminating balance issues. We still see them on occasion, and they're rare enough that they really stand out. That's surprising that you don't think they seem recreational since one of the big advantages of recumbents is the comfort they offer on long tours. The one place you frequently see them out here is on the coastal route which is still pretty popular for long tours. They are very poor for commuting because of visibility issues (both of the bike and of the cyclist), maneuverability, and safety. More male bovine excrement from the ignorant and dishonest Scharf. Riding a 'bent in traffic as a vehicular cyclist is not an issue, even a lowracer in Chicago (been there, done that). -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
Per Dan O:
jumping curbs, etc; Jumping curbs has a little-known hazard. Coming back from a day of windsurfing at the Jersey Shore one evening (all day in the sun.... dog tired....) I came into a massive traffic backup at the toll bridge into Philly. Was in the right lane with a divider strip between me and another group of lanes - which were almost empty - further to the right. Suddenly found myself pulling back on the steering wheel of my Suburban with the urge to jump that curb and get to the less-clogged lanes. -- PeteCresswell |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/14/2011 5:41 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 5/14/2011 4:19 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed* World's Greatest Expertâ„¢ wrote: On 5/13/2011 4:59 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: But there is a trend in Montreal that is starting to concern me. I went for a rec ride yesterday morning and in 2 hours I actually saw 3 bents. Now I'm nervous. Wow, must be a Canadian thing, like poutine. Recumbents have become rarer and rarer in the U.S.. It was a cute fad, but the disadvantages of recumbents, especially for vehicular cycling, are so overwhelming that most of the owners went back to regular bikes. Yet another recumbent "expert" that knows nothing. Oh wait, it is Scharf. No wonder then. If Scharf had a clue, he would know that a recumbent's natural environment *IS* vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling does *not* require jumping curbs and other such silliness (sorry Dan O). Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/19/2011 10:40 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 5/14/2011 5:41 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 5/14/2011 4:19 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed* World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/13/2011 4:59 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: But there is a trend in Montreal that is starting to concern me. I went for a rec ride yesterday morning and in 2 hours I actually saw 3 bents. Now I'm nervous. Wow, must be a Canadian thing, like poutine. Recumbents have become rarer and rarer in the U.S.. It was a cute fad, but the disadvantages of recumbents, especially for vehicular cycling, are so overwhelming that most of the owners went back to regular bikes. Yet another recumbent "expert" that knows nothing. Oh wait, it is Scharf. No wonder then. If Scharf had a clue, he would know that a recumbent's natural environment *IS* vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling does *not* require jumping curbs and other such silliness (sorry Dan O). Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... Herd mentality, more than anything else. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/19/2011 11:02 AM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed*
World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/19/2011 8:40 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: snip Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... I do see them on very popular touring routes like the Pacific Coast Highway. But for commuting, it's extremely rare to see a 'bent anymore--the whole 'bent schtick played itself out years ago. The Scharf believe that riding a recumbent is a "schtick" indicates that he is an ignorant fool. Recumbents are very poor for commuting because of visibility issues Bull****. Anyone who rides a 'bent knows better. (both of the bike and of the cyclist), maneuverability, and safety, and More Bull****. Ibid. most people have figured this out. Even more Bull****. Most people have never even tried commuting on a recumbent bicycle, so how would they know? By listening to (non)"experts" like Scharf? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On May 19, 5:38 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 5/19/2011 10:40 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: On 5/14/2011 5:41 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 5/14/2011 4:19 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf, the *self-proclaimed* World's Greatest Expert™ wrote: On 5/13/2011 4:59 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: But there is a trend in Montreal that is starting to concern me. I went for a rec ride yesterday morning and in 2 hours I actually saw 3 bents. Now I'm nervous. Wow, must be a Canadian thing, like poutine. Recumbents have become rarer and rarer in the U.S.. It was a cute fad, but the disadvantages of recumbents, especially for vehicular cycling, are so overwhelming that most of the owners went back to regular bikes. Yet another recumbent "expert" that knows nothing. Oh wait, it is Scharf. No wonder then. If Scharf had a clue, he would know that a recumbent's natural environment *IS* vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling does *not* require jumping curbs and other such silliness (sorry Dan O). Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... Herd mentality, more than anything else. I saw a 9 year-old actually herd cats down the driveway. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote:
Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). 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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Impressions from Bike to Work Day
On 5/20/2011 10:34 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
On 19/05/11 16:40, Duane Hebert wrote: Then why are they so rare? We actually have people here commuting on bikes and we rarely see bents... All sorts of reasons. But start off with cost. They have big tickets. As a cyclist with a pocketful of cash to spend, do you spend a lot on an incremental improvement you /know/ will improve matters (basically, your existing mount but better/lighter) or do you spend quite a bit more than that on something where you have no experience of at all? Most will do the former, and quite reasonably so. Most 'bent riders (certainly this one) seem to say that it's very important to try before you buy, because the difference between two notional 'bents is usually much greater than two notional uprights. So are you going to drop mucho $$$s on something folk say you must try, that you typically can't try (because they're hard to come by to test ride)? I'm an advocate, and I'd say don't do that... Part of the problem is they are misunderstood in terms of function. Asked to list bike categories, John Q. Cyclist might come up with racers, tourers, commuters, folders and recumbents. All those are /functional/ except the last, while in truth recumbents can (and IMHO should) themselves be subdivided by function just like uprights. Mine isn't first and foremost "a recumbent" but rather it's "a tourer". I use it because it does touring better (for what I want) better than any upright I could have had for the same money. But I think that most people wanting a tourer won't look at recumbents, they'll look at "tourers", and so on. And that leaves 'bents perceived as a function-free curiosity, rather than as bikes designed for particular functions that happen to have different seating arrangements. So a lot of it is down to chicken/egg. You'll have lots of 'bents after you've got lots of 'bents, as you need lots for a conservative group of punters to see they're viable and for the prices to come down so they can afford them. In other words, I can't see them really taking off in the foreseeable market conditions. (I don't commute on a 'bent, btw. Round here I use either a Brompton or Moulton TSR because they suit my particular journeys and needs best, but I can think of notional commute journeys where I'd be very happy on a 'bent). Some good points. I have no interest in bents so far but I don't really have anything against them. Was just chirping at Tom. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Impressions from Bike to Work Day | SMS | Techniques | 448 | May 30th 11 12:39 AM |
Impressions from Bike to Work Day | Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | May 14th 11 07:51 AM |
our work bike to work pic. | max | General | 3 | May 19th 08 11:31 AM |
New (to me) Road Bike First Impressions | Bill Henry | General | 11 | October 9th 05 02:57 PM |
Newbie impressions of a suspension bike. | Rural QLD CC | Mountain Biking | 10 | June 18th 04 01:25 AM |