30 years of improvements

Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake is visible in
the picture - not that a rear brake would be of much use with the poor
weight distribution. The overly long boom must be quite flexible, and
the single-speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[shudder] My geek-o-meter went off the scale on that one.

What am I seeing in the rear - a 3-speed hub?

jim h wrote:

[shudder] My geek-o-meter went off the scale on that one.

What am I seeing in the rear - a 3-speed hub?

It could be a 3-speed hub - I can not see the details clearly on my monitor.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake is visible in
the picture - not that a rear brake would be of much use with the poor
weight distribution. The overly long boom must be quite flexible, and
the single-speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the same bike that
is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-Powered Vehicles", as
modified by David Gordon Wilson (he shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first GPS would
probably look less strange to modern 'bentists, being more like a
P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB and thought OSS was unsafe
because of possible impact with the column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did (probably) the
Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the Avatar 2000, which had the
same riding position, but was LWB, which lead to the Ryan (Dick Ryan
was involved with the Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.

John Riley 1 at rogers dot com

Friends,

That is David Gordon Wilson's second recumbent design, Green Planet
Special II.

The third was the Avatar 1000-granddaddy of all the Hypercycle,
Turner, S&B, Haluzak, Vision, etc. long nosed, USS, SWB bikes. Last
was the Avatar 2000-granddaddy of all the Ryan, Infinity, Linear,
Tailwind, etc. USS, LWB bikes.

Ironically, his first, Green Planet Special I, was a beautiful OSS,
MWB-the granddaddy of the Lightning P-38, Ross Speed, Kingcycle, Giro,
etc.

Warren

"john riley" wrote in message
om...
Tom Sherman wrote in message
...
Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake is visible in
the picture - not that a rear brake would be of much use with the poor
weight distribution. The overly long boom must be quite flexible, and
the single-speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the same bike that
is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-Powered Vehicles", as
modified by David Gordon Wilson (he shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first GPS would
probably look less strange to modern 'bentists, being more like a
P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB and thought OSS was unsafe
because of possible impact with the column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did (probably) the
Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the Avatar 2000, which had the
same riding position, but was LWB, which lead to the Ryan (Dick Ryan
was involved with the Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.

The really interesting thing about all this history of the early recumbent
is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB and ended up with LWB because
there were so many inherent problems with SWB which LWB completely solved. I
rest my case for LWB!

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

"john riley" wrote in message
om...

Tom Sherman wrote in message

...

Here is a recumbent from three decades ago. No rear brake is visible in
the picture - not that a rear brake would be of much use with the poor
weight distribution. The overly long boom must be quite flexible, and
the single-speed drivetrain would be quite limiting.
http://sheldonbrown.org/images/Green_Planet.JPEG.

I am guessing this is the GPS II. I believe this is the same bike that
is pictured in figure 8.4 in the book "Human-Powered Vehicles", as
modified by David Gordon Wilson (he shortened the wheelbase).

It was built by H. Frederick Willkie II in 1973. The first GPS would
probably look less strange to modern 'bentists, being more like a
P-38. But DGW didn't like the high BB and thought OSS was unsafe
because of possible impact with the column in an accident.

The Avatar 1000 SWB came out of the GPS II, as did (probably) the
Hypercycle. The Avatar 1000 lead to the Avatar 2000, which had the
same riding position, but was LWB, which lead to the Ryan (Dick Ryan
was involved with the Avatar) and many other copies and decendants.

Not that anyone GAS about this historical stuff.


The really interesting thing about all this history of the early recumbent
is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB and ended up with LWB because
there were so many inherent problems with SWB which LWB completely solved. I
rest my case for LWB!

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would interview David
Gordon Wilson, Dick Ryan, Gardner Martin, John and Randy Schlitter, Milt
Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and write a book about the development of the
modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs appeared to be
driven by the objective of avoiding foot/wheel interference. As
experienced SWB riders know, this is generally not the concern it would
appear to be, as it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and
does not necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing this criterion
allows for a shorter boom that greatly improves frame stiffness, weight
distribution, handling and braking.

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion have bottom
brackets that are substantially higher than seat level. From this we can
conclude that the LWB design is a better choice for those who suffer
from foot numbness problems.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

The really interesting thing about all this history of the early
recumbent
is that David Gordon Wilson began with SWB and ended up with LWB because
there were so many inherent problems with SWB which LWB completely
solved. I
rest my case for LWB!

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would interview David
Gordon Wilson, Dick Ryan, Gardner Martin, John and Randy Schlitter, Milt
Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and write a book about the development of the
modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

I second the above motion! The development of the modern recumbent began
about 25 years ago. There were some articles in RCN that touched on this
early history. I will do a bit of research and give you my findings about
what was discovered with respect to my statement above. I believe the main
article was an interview with David Gordon Wilson. But there needs to be a
full review of the entire subject.

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs appeared to be
driven by the objective of avoiding foot/wheel interference. As
experienced SWB riders know, this is generally not the concern it would
appear to be, as it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and
does not necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing this criterion
allows for a shorter boom that greatly improves frame stiffness, weight
distribution, handling and braking.

There was more to it than that. I believe there was also quite a bit of
concern about center of balance issues as well.

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion have bottom
brackets that are substantially higher than seat level. From this we can
conclude that the LWB design is a better choice for those who suffer
from foot numbness problems.

I can vouch for the above as I am one of those who simply can't ride a
recumbent with the BB much higher than the seat due to foot numbness. But
even aside from that particular problem, I believer that the seat should be
slightly higher than the BB for ergonomic reasons having to do with
efficiency. I believe that the higher the BB in relation to the seat, the
more it detracts from power effectiveness. The only advantage is
aerodynamics and that does not make up for the loss of power to the pedal.
This all relates to human physiology. We are not designed by nature to have
our legs work above our posteriors.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ...
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would interview David
Gordon Wilson, Dick Ryan, Gardner Martin, John and Randy Schlitter, Milt
Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and write a book about the development of the
modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

I second the above motion! The development of the modern recumbent began
about 25 years ago. There were some articles in RCN that touched on this
early history. I will do a bit of research and give you my findings about
what was discovered with respect to my statement above. I believe the main
article was an interview with David Gordon Wilson. But there needs to be a
full review of the entire subject.

Point taken about there not being a single source, but numerous
articles have been written by and about the above people. Older
material might be found in the periodical "Human Power" , in the IHPVA
Scientific Symposia proceedings books, and "Bicycling Science". Newer
material might be found in books like "Human-Powered Vehicles", "The
Recumbent Bicycle" and "Bike Cult".

DGW's history of the Avatar has been published numerous places,
including some of the above.

We might have ended up with more and better, and maybe a single
definitive reference, except for the arrival of the internet. The
stuff available for free on the internet is not comprehensive, but
there is enough of it that most people won't pay for recumbent related
content. The IHPVA just limps along now.

http://www.ihpva.org/

It is interesting to note that all the early SWB designs appeared to be
driven by the objective of avoiding foot/wheel interference. As
experienced SWB riders know, this is generally not the concern it would
appear to be, as it only occurs during very slow speed maneuvers and
does not necessarily lead to a loss of control. Removing this criterion
allows for a shorter boom that greatly improves frame stiffness, weight
distribution, handling and braking.

There was more to it than that. I believe there was also quite a bit of
concern about center of balance issues as well.

All the better SWB designs from a performance criterion have bottom
brackets that are substantially higher than seat level. From this we can
conclude that the LWB design is a better choice for those who suffer
from foot numbness problems.

I can vouch for the above as I am one of those who simply can't ride a
recumbent with the BB much higher than the seat due to foot numbness. But
even aside from that particular problem, I believer that the seat should be
slightly higher than the BB for ergonomic reasons having to do with
efficiency. I believe that the higher the BB in relation to the seat, the
more it detracts from power effectiveness. The only advantage is
aerodynamics and that does not make up for the loss of power to the pedal.
This all relates to human physiology. We are not designed by nature to have
our legs work above our posteriors.

I don't presume to speak for DGW, but Ed's comments are along the
lines of DGW's IIRC. At the very least, DGW thought a lower BB was
more comfortable. He and Willkie started with a higher BB and went
lower. Given a lower BB, there were lots of issues with the SWB.

Back to history for a moment: At some point in the coming years we
will be leaving the house we are in. I don't think my collection of
bike material will make the move. I will offer it free to anyone who
might provide a good home for it and who will pay shipping, if
necessary.

It is not cataloged, and stuff that should have been dated (like bike
brochures) is not. So it is a big mess, really. It might include
photos from early IHPVA races in Indianapolis. Haven't decided about
that yet.

john riley 1 at rogers dot com

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

In my case, Mr. Riley is wrong. I wish someone would interview David
Gordon Wilson, Dick Ryan, Gardner Martin, John and Randy Schlitter, Milt
Turner, Tim Brummer, etc. and write a book about the development of the
modern recumbent bicycle in North America.

I have compiled a lot of history for the Avatar/Ryan branch of the
recumbent tree he
http://ryanownersclub.com/history/

PB