Pedal Forward Bike

On Oct 8, 9:42 pm, "Mike Kruger" wrote:

On Usenet, you can find somebody who will disparage anything: folders,
ultralite bikes, old indestructable Schwinns, hybrids, downhill bikes,
steel, carbon, aluminum, titanium, fixed gear, etc. etc.

You post it, somebody will hate it.

100% correct. I'm sure there are Usenet users right now that are
composing posts claiming that war is a positive good, alcoholism
actually increases longevity and productivity, Shimano is better than
Campy, and other such nonsensical beliefs. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
Ryan Cousineau writes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/413380853/

Graziella by Carnielli. 1970-vintage sorta-folding tandem made from two
reinforced shopping-bike frame kits. 3-speed S-A gearing, complete
bottle-gen light set.

The advantage over the other solutions is that my lovely bride needs to
manage neither static nor dynamic balance, and I am good enough now to
do that for two people.

Funky but cool.

Any issues with excessive frame flexure?

Not at the speeds we ride. The head tube and headset seem to be coping
with some pretty mighty loads, but the rest of the frame is braced, and
it's about as solid as you could expect from a semi-folding 20"-wheeled
tandem. So far, this has been strictly an around-the-neighbourhood
solution, and even that only after I changed the stock rear cog for a
somewhat larger one. The original gearing was comically high for a
sluggish tandem.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article ,
DougC wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Anyone who can't muster enough gumption
to make him or herself comfortable on a normal bike is not going to do
it on an abnormal bike either. (Although having to spend a few
thousand bucks on a 'bent rather than a few hundred on a normal bike
might tend to serve as an incentive to stick with it.)

I have ridden to work daily, in work clothes, on robust but normal
.... Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability who can't get comfortable on a
regular bike just isn't trying. While I'm sure there are exceptions,
lack of motivation usually can't be fixed by using a weird and
expensive bike.

Certainly--you /didn't/ buy it--but then we're back to the age-old
question: do the chairs in your house look like bicycle saddles, or
recumbent seats? How about where you sit in your car? On a bus? On a
plane? If conventional upright bicycle saddles are as comfortable as you
claim, then why isn't the seat design used on any other vehicle or chair?

When bicycle shops stop selling padded shorts, you'll know that they
finally figured out how to make a comfortable bicycle saddle.

A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.
One does not only fit a bicycle to one's
dimensions, one develops the physique
to fit the bicycle. With enough wind
and muscle on a properly sized bicycle,
then a resounding Yes! The saddle is comfortable.
It is more than comfortable. It is a ride.

--
Michael Press

wrote:

In my experience, bicycle saddles do quite well, once the proper one
is chosen. The complication is that, since people differ in riding
style and in butt sizes and shapes, a person must find one that fits
properly for the intended use. And many people simply don't realize
that.

Yes--but then we're back to the entire saddle problem with uprights, and
the fact that most recumbents are only available with one type of seat.
Shops that exclusively sell recumbents don't have a bunch of different
seats hanging on the wall, and with many bikes (trikes especially) the
seat is integral with the frame itself, and cannot be changed.

Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
available? Would you buy an upright bike if the seat-post and saddle
were already welded on? Why or why not?

Oh - and I suppose when we no longer hear about the affliction of
"recumbutt" we'll know that recumbent makers have finally figured out
how to make a comfortable recumbent seat. Right? ;-)


Recumbutt does happen, but it generally takes quite a while to occur and
is nowhere near as severe as the pain an upright saddle causes.
~

On Oct 9, 7:05 am, DougC wrote:

Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
available?

Hmm. I know I shouldn't say this, but the promise that recumbents
"will sell" is, so far, largely unrealized.

Maybe it's the lack of seat choices that have prevented them from
becoming popular? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:51:37 -0500, DougC wrote:

Who started this foolishness?
I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing
under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon".
It's absolute idiocy.

It's not for supporting your entire weight upon, since you're pushing
down on the pedals. If you're working hard seated, I'd guess it takes no
more than a quarter, on average.

On Oct 8, 8:44 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messa...ead.php?t=4785

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in.../t-115989.html

"Recumbent butt" is mild discomfort, and can be relived by getting off
the bike for a couple of minutes, and then does not return for quite
some time.

The pain from riding an upright saddle (for those who have it) can be
excruciating, and will NOT be eliminated by a few minutes (or even a few
hours) rest, but returns almost immediately upon remounting the bicycle.

I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating"
pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very
rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even
if it's a bad decision.

For "excruciating," one might have to use a "Real Man" saddle like
this http://sheldonbrown.com/real-man.html on a century ride about
one week after beginning cycling.

I think most people with saddle complaints are probably beginners, and
are having problems because their salesperson (i.e. the kid at Wal-
Mart) didn't explain that a saddle must fit the rider and the intended
use.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:05:31 -0500, DougC wrote:

Why is it that recumbents will sell when there's only one seat
available?

By and large they don't sell AFAICS. Maybe there's a clue here :-)

wrote:

I think both you and DougC are greatly exaggerating the "excruciating"
pain from even a badly chosen upright saddle. I believe it's very
rare to get "excruciating" pain from any normal saddle decision, even
if it's a bad decision.


I've felt it. My first adult bicycle caused me enormous pain after only
a few miles. I solved it by getting expensive riding pants which cost me
$115 and also were very tight. In my case, the pants look ok but many
newbies are embarrassed by them. Then I had to slowly break in my ass.
This was NOT a fun time.

When I took a friend down to REI to buy a bike (her choice of stores)
she ended up with a decent bike. I insisted she buy bicycle pants. She
wouldn't come out of the dressing room with them. Instead, she insisted
I come in. She didn't buy them. She gave up bicycling due to comfort
issues in a few weeks of earnest trying.

Time and again adults starting out feel the same. Why do you think
newbies are sold 'comfort' bikes - because they find some comfort in
standard bikes? Of course not.

If people in the bike community want to spread the practice they need to
understand that few newbies can sit a bike even for a mile. Many are fat
or think they'll be laughed at in lycra so need to ride in street
clothes or other concealment clothes.

That's a fact of the newbie.

-paul

On Oct 9, 4:51 am, DougC wrote:

A bicycle saddle is not for sitting.

Who started this foolishness?
I'd really like to know, who first proposed that "this platform thing
under your ass on a bicycle" is not for "placing your ass upon".
It's absolute idiocy.

I can recall my own experiences, and have seen a number of real-world
riders as well as a number of photos online, that would seem to indicate
differently.

Your lack of understanding of how a bicycle seat should be used is
likely the reason behind any lack of comfort you feel on upright
bicycles. The weight of the rider should properly be distributed
trhough the hands, feet, and rear, not just on the rear as many people
seem to think. It's not a tiny chair that you're supposed to sit fully
upon constantly with your full weight. It is closer to the truth to
say that the seat is something on which the rider props him or herself
up while standing on the pedals. Furthermore the rider should be light
enough on the saddle to change positions subtly and very often.

Give it a try.

Robert