The most confortable saddle!

I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
ride much more if your conformable.

Ken Bradley wrote:
I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
ride much more if your conformable.

I'm glad you found comfort through your recumbent and are riding it a
lot. I'm comfortable on my Lemond with my Brooks saddle and Rivendell
Noodle drop bars. That's the way it should be; no matter what you ride,
you should be comfortable. And as Eddy Merckx said "ride lots".

Smokey

A drunken college professor mistakenly wrote:

I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area,
pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
you can see the scenery without strain.

Then go out and ride the damn thing instead of propagandizing like
your bearded hippie lot are want to do. Bring some tempeh snacks for
the hills. Don't forget your orange geek flag!

Great view of traffic too.

Yeah, it's fascinating under a Kenworth tire!

Ken Bradley wrote:
I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike.

Sounds like what didn't exist for you is a proper fitiing bicycle.

Too much force on a small area,
pressure, if I remember my physics

Physics has nothing to do with it, Ergonomics and yer butt size does,
along with bike fit.

.. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a
recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and
you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will
ride much more if your conformable.

Unique, sometimes hard to find parts, heavy, complicated, hard to see
from(behind) and be seen on..if it works for you, fine, but it really
answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
fitted upright. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like
climbing.

Is a recumbent saddle, er, seat.

qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
...if it works for you, fine, but it really
answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
fitted upright.

How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
solve a problem?

For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".

The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on
it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.

If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?

Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I
enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright
bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding
recumbent, which I also enjoy.

There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better
handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike
visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in
my area.

DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.

Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall
on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish
I had the DF under me.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

One other huge advantage of riding recumbent is the wide open chest position
(does not apply to "hamster style" bars). The overall view is far superior
to upright, just not directly ahead of the bike. I love, er loved my upright
bikes, until I got my Trike. I ride further, faster, with less fatigue than
ever before. And, no more numb hands, achy neck, sore butt, etc. The biggest
disadvantage... Not being able to "unweight" on the rough stuff. I really do
still love my uprights, I just hardly ever ride them anymore.

Grolsch



"Victor Kan" wrote in message
. ..
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
...if it works for you, fine, but it really
answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
fitted upright.

How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or solve
a problem?

For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer distances
with less effort on the routes I ride without training better, losing 40
lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".

The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on it
than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.

If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?

Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I enjoy
challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright bike riding
position--it's a different cycling experience than riding recumbent, which
I also enjoy.

There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better handling
(and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike visibility
that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in my area.

DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.

Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall on
the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish I
had the DF under me.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

Victor Kan wrote:
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
...if it works for you, fine, but it really
answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well
fitted upright.

How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers
no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question
answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or
solve a problem?

For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer
distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better,
losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?".

Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
as long as uprights, fit well, exist.

The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted
upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on
it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact.

If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average
~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower
average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much?

Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I
enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright
bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding
recumbent, which I also enjoy.

There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better
handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike
visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in
my area.

DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing.

Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall
on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish
I had the DF under me.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
as long as uprights, fit well, exist.

If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Michael Warner wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts,
that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all
the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think
that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity,
weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of
upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and
that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so,
as long as uprights, fit well, exist.

So maybe the better statement is that "bents don't answer all questions,
and don't solve all problems". Only the hopelessly kool aid drunk would
disagree.

If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone
on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look
at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively,
in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great.

I ride in heavy traffic (albeit not big city urban traffic with
homicidal cab drivers) all the time and don't have problems that are
recumbent induced. Granted, the roads in my area are pretty good for
the most part.

I have no interest in riding with groups, whether on a DF or a
recumbent, competitively or recreationally. But for those who do,
riding with groups of DFs can be a problem when done incorrectly (it
seems 'bents are OK if they either stay in the back or stay in the front
rather than rotating through with everybody else), but groups of 'bents
can surely work.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.