|
|
#1
July 18th 05, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Two front or back?
I'm just learning about recumbent trikes. I know I shall have eventually to try to arrange to try a few out but want to learn all the theory I possibly can first. What then are the nitty gritty differences between the delta and tadpole arrangements? 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
July 19th 05, 08:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Loft" wrote in message ... I'm just learning about recumbent trikes. I know I shall have eventually to try to arrange to try a few out but want to learn all the theory I possibly can first. What then are the nitty gritty differences between the delta and tadpole arrangements? Hmmm. How to summarize? Tadpole trikes are quite sporty, lending themselves well to deft handling, which can be quite exciting - even scary - at high speeds. The rider sits low to the ground, so they are less visible in traffic. Disc brake equipped tadpoles can actually do a "stoppie" (front wheelie) if you carelessly grab a handful of brake lever in a quick stop. Most tadpoles exhibit noticeable pedal steer and brake steer, due to the front-end design, rider weight distribution and short wheelbase. Mounting/dismounting a tadpole can be tricky for less-flexible and older riders. A tadpole trike most resembles a 3-wheeled pedal-driven go kart. Deltas tend to be designed for touring, commuting, shopping, hauling, cruising. They tend to be longer, taller and heavier than tadpoles. They are easier to handle at low speeds; but can tip more easily than tadpoles in sharp turns. Since delta trikes only have one wheel up front, they don't brake as powerfully as tadpoles (which may be a good thing). Many delta designs resemble 3-wheeled CLWB bikes. They are ideal for older riders and riders with balance issues (inner ear complications, etc). Neither design takes advantage of the sinuous lean-steering that all bicycles posess; thus they are somewhat less elegant in the cornering department. With few exceptions, trikes are heavier and harder to carry than recumbent bicycles. They are also very expensive, often twice the price of a comparable recumbent bicycle.
|
|
#3
July 19th 05, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"What Me Worry?" wrote in message news:fL1De.186526$xm3.158453@attbi_s21... "Loft" wrote in message ... I'm just learning about recumbent trikes. I know I shall have eventually to try to arrange to try a few out but want to learn all the theory I possibly can first. What then are the nitty gritty differences between the delta and tadpole arrangements? Hmmm. How to summarize? Tadpole trikes are quite sporty, lending themselves well to deft handling, which can be quite exciting - even scary - at high speeds. The rider sits low to the ground, so they are less visible in traffic. Disc brake equipped tadpoles can actually do a "stoppie" (front wheelie) if you carelessly grab a handful of brake lever in a quick stop. Most tadpoles exhibit noticeable pedal steer and brake steer, due to the front-end design, rider weight distribution and short wheelbase. Mounting/dismounting a tadpole can be tricky for less-flexible and older riders. A tadpole trike most resembles a 3-wheeled pedal-driven go kart. Deltas tend to be designed for touring, commuting, shopping, hauling, cruising. They tend to be longer, taller and heavier than tadpoles. They are easier to handle at low speeds; but can tip more easily than tadpoles in sharp turns. Since delta trikes only have one wheel up front, they don't brake as powerfully as tadpoles (which may be a good thing). Many delta designs resemble 3-wheeled CLWB bikes. They are ideal for older riders and riders with balance issues (inner ear complications, etc). Neither design takes advantage of the sinuous lean-steering that all bicycles posess; thus they are somewhat less elegant in the cornering department. With few exceptions, trikes are heavier and harder to carry than recumbent bicycles. They are also very expensive, often twice the price of a comparable recumbent bicycle. Bravo! The best thing I have read about tadpoles and deltas on this newsgroup in a long time. The only thing I would add is that deltas have not undergone the high end experimentation that tadpoles have. There is much potential for a better delta (sportier and faster) than has ever been realized. Tadpoles are somewhat over rated and deltas are somewhat under rated. Whether this will ever change is doubtful. Tadpoles just plain look sexier, and the kind of guys who will spend $3000. to buy a trike want that sexy look. Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
|
#4
July 19th 05, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 07/18/2005 20:22:48 Loft wrote: I'm just learning about recumbent trikes. I know I shall have eventually to try to arrange to try a few out but want to learn all the theory I possibly can first. What then are the nitty gritty differences between the delta and tadpole arrangements? I think you have your answer, tadpoles handle better, deltas can be more comfortable for general riding, but there is a trade off whichever you choose, there are very comfortable tadpoles and there are great handling deltas. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk
|
|
#5
July 19th 05, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Me Worry? wrote:
Tadpole trikes are quite sporty Well, the sporty ones are... ;-) Seriously, if an Anthrotech is "sporting" then we clearly have different definitions! Neither design takes advantage of the sinuous lean-steering that all bicycles posess Not intrinsically, but there are some lean-steer designs out there, and more appear as time goes by. thus they are somewhat less elegant in the cornering department. The rider is generally free to shift their weight to keep the wheels on the deck, even though the trike itself won't lean. Whether motorcycle sidecar racers have "less elegant" cornering than their more conventional cousins is a matter of taste rather than fact, and similarly for cycles. With few exceptions, trikes are heavier and harder to carry than recumbent bicycles. They are also very expensive, often twice the price of a comparable recumbent bicycle. True as a rule of thumb, though one must be careful about "comparable". One thing that would put you on a trikes rather than a bike is that there are some places where having an extra wheel means you can't really compare one with the other. As with other aspects of 'bents, I think the degree to which the designer knows what he's at will probably have more bearing on the end result than simply does it have one wheel at the back, or at the front. I think you have to look at specific models designed for the particular job you want to do. 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/
|
|
#6
July 19th 05, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
... What Me Worry? wrote: Tadpole trikes are quite sporty Well, the sporty ones are... ;-) Seriously, if an Anthrotech is "sporting" then we clearly have different definitions! Most tadpoles are sportier than most deltas. It was a general statement. Neither design takes advantage of the sinuous lean-steering that all bicycles posess Not intrinsically, but there are some lean-steer designs out there, and more appear as time goes by. That will be a welcome change. thus they are somewhat less elegant in the cornering department. The rider is generally free to shift their weight to keep the wheels on the deck, even though the trike itself won't lean. Whether motorcycle sidecar racers have "less elegant" cornering than their more conventional cousins is a matter of taste rather than fact, and similarly for cycles. If you are very daring, try racing a delta trike on a tight, winding course against an upright or SWB recumbent bike. The bicycle's propensity for sinuous curve-carving will eat the delta for lunch in every single corner. I'd be amazed if the delta could even begin to compete without flipping over. Tadpoles could be competitive on certain courses against two-wheelers; but carving through turns is tricky business. The body lean motion is more intentional than natural, since it is in opposition to the steering tiller, and requires moving the torso significantly out-of-plane while still retaining full control of the tiller to keep from veering or flipping over. Bicycles, conversely, require very little body motion to produce perfect, sinuous, coordinated turns at high speeds. With few exceptions, trikes are heavier and harder to carry than recumbent bicycles. They are also very expensive, often twice the price of a comparable recumbent bicycle. True as a rule of thumb, though one must be careful about "comparable". All other materials, components and build details being roughly equal, trikes are always more expensive than bikes. Period. In most cases, they are at least twice the price. One thing that would put you on a trikes rather than a bike is that there are some places where having an extra wheel means you can't really compare one with the other. Yes, you can. They're both pedal-powered vehicles. As with other aspects of 'bents, I think the degree to which the designer knows what he's at will probably have more bearing on the end result than simply does it have one wheel at the back, or at the front. I think you have to look at specific models designed for the particular job you want to do. But there are general characteristics that distinguish each major design, and which serve to explain the popularity of particular types of delta and tadpole trikes. For instance: Make a list of race-winning delta trikes. Then make a list of race-winning tadpoles. Compare the length of each list. Now, make a list of tall, cargo-oriented tadpoles. Then make a list of tall, cargo-oriented deltas. See a pattern forming?
|
|
#7
July 19th 05, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
July 20th 05, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"What Me Worry?" wrote in message news:Ao9De.164846$x96.7479@attbi_s72... "Peter Clinch" wrote in message ... What Me Worry? wrote: Tadpole trikes are quite sporty Well, the sporty ones are... ;-) Seriously, if an Anthrotech is "sporting" then we clearly have different definitions! Most tadpoles are sportier than most deltas. It was a general statement. Lots of luck trying to explain to this group what a general statement is all about. I have been at it for over 3 years now and they still don't get it. Most on this group only understand very particular and specialized kind of statements. The UK nuts, of which Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is a sterling example, are especially prone to this defective mental condition. [,,,] With few exceptions, trikes are heavier and harder to carry than recumbent bicycles. They are also very expensive, often twice the price of a comparable recumbent bicycle. True as a rule of thumb, though one must be careful about "comparable". All other materials, components and build details being roughly equal, trikes are always more expensive than bikes. Period. In most cases, they are at least twice the price. Whoops! Another general statement which goes right by the likes of Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland. You have to realize his powers for thinking abstractly about anything and coming to some general conclusions are severely limited. He is like a child that way. One thing that would put you on a trikes rather than a bike is that there are some places where having an extra wheel means you can't really compare one with the other. Yes, you can. They're both pedal-powered vehicles. Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland is incapable of ever comparing one thing with another. All he ever knows how to do is nit pick. He is a man only for details, never even having a glimmer of what the big picture might be. As with other aspects of 'bents, I think the degree to which the designer knows what he's at will probably have more bearing on the end result than simply does it have one wheel at the back, or at the front. I think you have to look at specific models designed for the particular job you want to do. But there are general characteristics that distinguish each major design, and which serve to explain the popularity of particular types of delta and tadpole trikes. For instance: Make a list of race-winning delta trikes. Then make a list of race-winning tadpoles. Compare the length of each list. Now, make a list of tall, cargo-oriented tadpoles. Then make a list of tall, cargo-oriented deltas. See a pattern forming? You are asking Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland to think bigger than he is capable of thinking. He is a Lilliputian and not worth trying to educate. After all, he is a Medical Physics Officer (whatever the hell that is) and no doubt thinks he knows everything. He has himself confused with me. Only I know everything. That is why I am Great. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
|
#10
July 20th 05, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rice" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:21:14 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: snip Lots of luck trying to explain to this group (stinkbait snipped) [...] good to see some inelligent conversation in *cough* some of the posts. Yes, it is too bad that an idiot like Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland had to go and ruin a perfectly good thread with his nonsense just because he cannot distinguish a general statement from a hole in the ground. Thank God for the Great Ones (like Ed Dolan) who know the difference between a general statement and a particular statement and is not hesitant to point out that difference to ARBR numskulls like Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Best front derailleur for half step plus granny | Frank Miles | Techniques | 15 | July 5th 04 11:30 PM |
| Fractured front cog? | Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\) | Techniques | 3 | July 5th 04 09:03 PM |
| newbie bike question - how to tell if bike chain is worn too much | Stephen | Australia | 7 | November 28th 03 01:14 AM |
| BAck from the BMW, tired and fairly happy | Sarah Miller | Unicycling | 46 | October 13th 03 12:54 PM |
| Braking Technique | asqui | Racing | 55 | July 25th 03 04:16 PM |
Linear Mode
