#1
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Fri, 5 Sep 2008 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Chalo wrote: queried about how they did it, they would say things like "you gotta get your weight back and go real easy on the handlebars", or some variation thereof. Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly the same advice I have heard from recumbent riders when they offer their wisdom about keeping the rubber side down. Ah, so when people tell you that a particular style of bike has certain requirements due to geometry, you won't ride that way so it's the bike's fault. Funny really. When I've ridden an off road motorcycle I find that if you ride it as it's supposed to be ridden it works a lot better than riding it as though it's a roadracer. Who'd have thought that the lack of an engine completely negates that. Learn something every day. Zebee - who finds that trying to ride the roadracer like a dirtbike doesn't work either... |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Chalo wrote: queried about how they did it, they would say things like "you gotta get your weight back and go real easy on the handlebars", or some variation thereof. *Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly the same advice I have heard from recumbent riders when they offer their wisdom about keeping the rubber side down. Ah, so when people tell you that a particular style of bike has certain requirements due to geometry, you won't ride that way so it's the bike's fault. Funny really. *When I've ridden an off road motorcycle I find that if you ride it as it's supposed to be ridden it works a lot better than riding it as though it's a roadracer. Who'd have thought that the lack of an engine completely negates that. Learn something every day. So, what then is the correct approach for riding a Kawasaki H1 triple? I assume its reputation for treacherous handling must be the result of folks riding it in a way it was not intended to be ridden. How about a Triumph chopper with 24" over forks? Surely there must be a way to tease the sweet handling qualities out of a bike like that. I have built and ridden a lot of crazy machines, some of which handled relatively well and others of which were challenging. I'll reiterate for your benefit: Many bikes _can_ be ridden that are actually no good at all for the task, at any speed, with any rider. Techniques for coping with them are, well, coping. There is such a thing as plain terrible handling and most, perhaps all, 'bents seem to have it. Chalo |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
Chalo Colina wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote: Chalo wrote: queried about how they did it, they would say things like "you gotta get your weight back and go real easy on the handlebars", or some variation thereof. Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly the same advice I have heard from recumbent riders when they offer their wisdom about keeping the rubber side down. Ah, so when people tell you that a particular style of bike has certain requirements due to geometry, you won't ride that way so it's the bike's fault. Funny really. When I've ridden an off road motorcycle I find that if you ride it as it's supposed to be ridden it works a lot better than riding it as though it's a roadracer. Who'd have thought that the lack of an engine completely negates that. Learn something every day. So, what then is the correct approach for riding a Kawasaki H1 triple? I assume its reputation for treacherous handling must be the result of folks riding it in a way it was not intended to be ridden. How about a Triumph chopper with 24" over forks? Surely there must be a way to tease the sweet handling qualities out of a bike like that. I have built and ridden a lot of crazy machines, some of which handled relatively well and others of which were challenging. I'll reiterate for your benefit: Many bikes _can_ be ridden that are actually no good at all for the task, at any speed, with any rider. Techniques for coping with them are, well, coping. There is such a thing as plain terrible handling and most, perhaps all, 'bents seem to have it. The only real technique needed for a decently designed recumbent that fits the rider is relaxing and not over-controlling the bike. The BikeE is one of the easiest designs to ride. Even on my lowracers where the combined bike-rider center of mass has to move through a much shorter arc for a given lean angle than that of a more standard recumbent or an upright is easy to ride after a hilly century on a hot day when I suffering from heat exhaustion and functioning mentally at a much lower state than normal. To keep beating a necessary point, I can not think of single stock production recumbent that is designed for a rider of Chalo's height and weight. It is simply not economical to build a regular production bicycle to fit people in the 99.9999th percentile of size. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
Tom Sherman wrote:
Chalo Colina wrote: Zebee Johnstone wrote: Chalo wrote: [cuuuut] To keep beating a necessary point, I can not think of single stock production recumbent that is designed for a rider of Chalo's height and weight. It is simply not economical to build a regular production bicycle to fit people in the 99.9999th percentile of size. Maybe not the weight, but i think that the height is not too impossible if Chalo takes the cruzbike moves the seat as far back as possible and push out the telescopic front tube as far out as possible. But maybe he? will have better luck building his own conversion and carefully choose the right frame. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
Tom Sherman wrote:
To keep beating a necessary point, I can not think of single stock production recumbent that is designed for a rider ofChalo'sheight and weight. It is simply not economical to build a regular production bicycle to fit people in the 99.9999th percentile of size. I don't know what magical effect of my height and weight you are referencing, but note that the proportional difference between a 120 pound rider and a 200 pound rider is the same as the proportional difference between the 200 pound rider and me. There are lots of available examples of normal bikes that work equally well for both 120- pound and 200-pound riders, and very few that work well for one but not the other. If shifting the rider's center of mass to and fro dramatically according to height causes a 'bent to display handling anomalies, then I'd have to count that as yet another intrinsic drawback of the category. Chalo |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BikeE?
Chalo Colina wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: To keep beating a necessary point, I can not think of single stock production recumbent that is designed for a rider ofChalo'sheight and weight. It is simply not economical to build a regular production bicycle to fit people in the 99.9999th percentile of size. I don't know what magical effect of my height and weight you are referencing, but note that the proportional difference between a 120 pound rider and a 200 pound rider is the same as the proportional difference between the 200 pound rider and me. There are lots of available examples of normal bikes that work equally well for both 120- pound and 200-pound riders, and very few that work well for one but not the other. There are quite of few recumbent bicycles that are suitable for a 200-pound rider that are too flexible for a 330-pound rider. I would consider the BikeE one of those, particularly any model with suspension or riveted chainstays. If shifting the rider's center of mass to and fro dramatically according to height causes a 'bent to display handling anomalies, then I'd have to count that as yet another intrinsic drawback of the category. It is typical for the low-speed handling on LWB and CLWB (e.g. BikeE singles) to deteriorate when the CG moves too far back. Here is a simple test: if you can do "power wheelies" from a stop or if the front wheel comes off the ground on steep climbs with each pedal stroke, the bike is too small. As for the "intrinsic drawback" of shifting weight on a recumbent affecting handling, note that most upright bicycles have very little adjustment range built in and a given frame will only fit a small variation in rider size properly. Recumbents are generally designed for a greater range of rider size due to economies of scale - with typical production volumes, making multiple sizes would be too expensive. It could actually be considered an advantage of a recumbent that a frame can fit a larger range of riders properly than is typically the case with uprights. Of course some recumbent bicycles will fit a large range of rider sizes properly, such as my Sunset Lowracer [1] which used to be owned by a woman at least 30 cm shorter than I am and barely half my mass. However, this is because the frame telescopes both below the seat and in the boom (the former extended about 10 cm and the latter about 5 cm to fit me). Hard to find an upright that will work well for such a range of rider size. [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1940445068/. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ha Ha Ha Ha Hee - BikeE | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 6 | September 15th 08 03:11 AM |
BikeE? | Zebee Johnstone | Techniques | 5 | September 7th 08 02:52 AM |
BikeE Bad? | Jeff Grippe | Recumbent Biking | 6 | February 3rd 07 09:32 PM |
Bikee | Richard Greenberg | Recumbent Biking | 16 | October 26th 05 01:37 PM |
FS: BikeE CT and Vision R40 | Ernie Daniel | Recumbent Biking | 0 | November 14th 04 12:01 AM |