Better handling?

If race results have any bearing on handling....
I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
Fastest lap or highest average speed
At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
with a 80% win rate
LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
Speedy


Ken Marcet wrote:

Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other bikes.
Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
and thought it seemed to handle well too.

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jon Meinecke wrote:

"Dex" wrote in message

I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
under-seat steering and a R[ANS] Screamer tandem.


On many recumbent bikes you can press between pedals
and seatback to unload the body weight on the seat bottom
somewhat. It's possible to rise completely off the seat
bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...

Tougher with more reclined seating. Haven't come up
with a very satisfactory mode for dealing with rough
roads on my Volae Sport. Pulling on the handle bars
helps only a bit as does bracing between pedals and
seatback. Anyone riding a high-bottom bracket
SWB have any suggestions?

I can easily lift myself off the seat on my Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer
[TM] which has a 38 degree seat angle and a BB approximately 16 cm
(~6-1/2") above seat height. I can see that it would be hard to do with
a hard-shell seat reclined in the mid 20 degree range.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent" wrote:

If race results have any bearing on handling....
I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
Fastest lap or highest average speed
At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
with a 80% win rate
LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
Speedy

Without split times around the corners, I would hesitate to extrapolate
to much from this, since the Rotator bikes should have significant
straight-line speed advantages over the DF bikes due to decreased
aerodynamic drag.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Ken:

"Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard to
argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver on
a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster in
the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a recumbent
and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long sweeping
turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
longer wheelbase.


"Ken Marcet" wrote in message
...
Is it my imagination or do recumbents tend to handle better than your
standard upright road cycle or mtb? After riding my custom recycled
recumbent swb with a headtube angle of about 81 degrees more than several
times now I have noticed that is seems to handle better than my other
bikes.
Is this generally true or is it due to my high headtube angle? This is my
first recumbent that I own for myself, I had the chance to ride a lwb once
and thought it seemed to handle well too.

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109609445.85044007dbbef0b3e026028ff5e843c7@t eranews...
"Dex" wrote in message

I like recumbents! As far as handling, when I hit a larger bump,
there is no way to shift your weight to compensate like you can when
you are riding an upright bike. O ride a Vision V40 SWB with
under-seat steering and a Rans Screamer tandem.

On many recumbent bikes you can press between pedals
and seatback to unload the body weight on the seat bottom
somewhat. It's possible to rise completely off the seat
bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...

This sounds like a perfect recipe for a back injury.


Tougher with more reclined seating. Haven't come up
with a very satisfactory mode for dealing with rough
roads on my Volae Sport. Pulling on the handle bars
helps only a bit as does bracing between pedals and
seatback. Anyone riding a high-bottom bracket
SWB have any suggestions?

Jon Meinecke

"Freewheeling" wrote

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message

It's possible to rise completely off the seat
bottom while coasting. I do this at certain rough places
on my TourEasy when I'm trail riding or railroad crossing...

This sounds like a perfect recipe for a back injury.

Then you misconstrue the body position that results.

With the Easy Racer Koolback seat, is it possible
to slide up the seatback and off the seat by pressing
with legs against pedals. This is most easily done
while coasting and does not result in a position that
invites back injury.

One need not rise far enough to lock knees, but rather
only an inch or so to unload seat slightly. Body weight
may thus be suspended between pedals and seat back.
By keeping knees bent, a certain amount of the bump/
shock may be absorbed or at least shifted from
bottom and lower back.

Road bump shock delivered through the seat to lower
back may aggravate degenerative disc conditions. I
know. I have S5-L1 disc/nerve damage. The riding
position of an upright bike particularly with drop bars
may open the lower back to even more effect from
such impact. I know. I was riding an upright when
my disc problems became acute.

A bike with a supportive backrest and rear suspension
is recommended for such conditions. Can you guess
what sort of recumbent someone with such condition
and limited budget might buy in 1998?

It is possible to perform the rising-from-seat maneuver
on that bike, too, though not as "sweetly" as a year
or so later...

Jon Meinecke

Freewheeling wrote:
"Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard to
argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver on
a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster in
the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a recumbent
and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long sweeping
turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
longer wheelbase.

A lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase will cause the bike to
fall into the turns faster. Think of the example of balancing your
favorite long-handled garden tool with the heavy part high vs. the
heavy part low. With the heavy part high the tool is much easier to
balance. So it goes with bicycles. This works to a low, long
recumbent's advantage on twisty, technical downhills, making it
easier to change direction on tight S-curves, and makes it somewhat
more difficult to maintain straight travel on the broad and wide or
near the stall speed, about 2 mph on something like a Pursuit or
Gold Rush. I suspect that riding rollers is more difficult on a
long, low recumbent because of its relative instability to an upright
bike. A number of years ago Bill Patterson posted to the HPV list a
good explanation of the combination of wheelbase, weight
distribution, COG (center of gravity) height, forward velocity, and
trail that summarized what I've observed first-hand.

Jobst Brandt and I ride the same local roads, and I am fairly certain
I have passed at least 20 times as many "slower upright cyclists"
descending as he has passed "slower recumbent cyclists" descending.
This doesn't say much about which kind of bike is faster, and I
suspect that at the limit it's a wash, depending more on the operator
than anything else. Technical descending is largely a mental
exercise limited by one's familiarity with the road, one's comfort
level when leaning the bike near the slip-out angle, and one's
willingness to descend at a speed such that one's stopping distance
exceeds one's vision distance in the corners.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

With the fact that the pedals can't strike the ground and the lower CoG the
Pursuit speed thru corners is probably higher.
Speedy

Tom Sherman wrote:

S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent" wrote:

If race results have any bearing on handling....
I have set course records at several criteriums over the years
Fastest lap or highest average speed
At our local crit I have a 100% podium finish rate
with a 80% win rate
LWB designs feel the most comfortable to me in fast turns
I use the same bike to commute 5,000 miles a year
Speedy

Without split times around the corners, I would hesitate to extrapolate
to much from this, since the Rotator bikes should have significant
straight-line speed advantages over the DF bikes due to decreased
aerodynamic drag.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

One of the fun things about a 'bent if road conditions are good is to
put the hammer down as you go through a turn. It is a blast. A lot more
fun than coasting through a turn.


--
bentbrian

"Bill Bushnell" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:
"Handling" is probably too general a term. If you mean something like
maneuverability, including hopping obstacles, there's no contest. Hands
free ridability? Again, very few recumbents can compete. It's also hard
to
argue with Josh Brandt's observation that a recumbent could not maneuver
on
a technical downhill with the facility of a DF, although it'll be faster
in
the "non-technical" sections. The acid test of "handling" is probably
riding rollers, and as someone who has been on rollers with both a
recumbent
and an upright I can tell you that it's a lot easier on an upright. The
only area where recumbents may have a handling advantage is on long
sweeping
turns at speed. Perhaps it's because of the lower center of gravity and
longer wheelbase.

A lower center of gravity and longer wheelbase will cause the bike to
fall into the turns faster. Think of the example of balancing your
favorite long-handled garden tool with the heavy part high vs. the
heavy part low. With the heavy part high the tool is much easier to
balance. So it goes with bicycles. This works to a low, long
recumbent's advantage on twisty, technical downhills, making it
easier to change direction on tight S-curves, and makes it somewhat
more difficult to maintain straight travel on the broad and wide or
near the stall speed, about 2 mph on something like a Pursuit or
Gold Rush.

No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional centered
position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical descents, which is
simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be done. Very few sportif riders
do this of course, so your comments may have some validity in that sort of
situation... but under typical road racing conditions against pros? No way.

I suspect that riding rollers is more difficult on a
long, low recumbent because of its relative instability to an upright
bike. A number of years ago Bill Patterson posted to the HPV list a
good explanation of the combination of wheelbase, weight
distribution, COG (center of gravity) height, forward velocity, and
trail that summarized what I've observed first-hand.

I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with
the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to stand
on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the top
to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a divice,
although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner to
the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of course
this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs are
"more maneuverable."

There are other disadvantages for recumbents, one of which is often not
being able to actually see the and monitor the position of the wheel
relative to the edge of the rollers. I considered modifying the rollers so
that the sound of wheel against roller would provide a sense of whether or
not you are centered or nearing an edge. Still, it's possible to ride
rollers on a recumbent. It took me close to a year to learn it, but I could
ride for an hour at a time without touching a support. The main reason I no
longer do it is that it causes my downstairs neighbor to go ballistic.
Apartment living...



Jobst Brandt and I ride the same local roads, and I am fairly certain
I have passed at least 20 times as many "slower upright cyclists"
descending as he has passed "slower recumbent cyclists" descending.
This doesn't say much about which kind of bike is faster, and I
suspect that at the limit it's a wash, depending more on the operator
than anything else. Technical descending is largely a mental
exercise limited by one's familiarity with the road, one's comfort
level when leaning the bike near the slip-out angle, and one's
willingness to descend at a speed such that one's stopping distance
exceeds one's vision distance in the corners.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/