From: rwt@ohm.york.ac.uk (Richard Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: recumbents, winters, and training wheels...
Keywords: recumbent
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:42:38 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

In <ldopprINNg2e@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> dlp@km6pr.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Pritchett - SunSoft Engineer) writes:


>In article <Bw4ABo.Lt5@fc.hp.com>, koren@fc.hp.com (Steve Koren) writes:
>|>   * What are the relative merits of short vs. long wheelbase recumbents?
>|>     I know there are some with a short wheelbase where the pedals sit
>|>     out in front of the rider on some sort of stem.  Then some have a
>|>     longer wheelbase that permits the pedals to be mounted near or in
>|>     the frame.  The advantages I see of the short wheelbase design
>|>     include lighter weight (is this true?), but it seems like the longer
>|>     wheelbase design is better, since it has more stability, and the
>|>     pedals might be better supported and sturdier.  Anything I'm missing
>|>     here?  Are the long wheelbase designs the way to go?
>|> 
>Long wheelbase bikes have the advantage of better stability. Short wheel
>base bikes have the advantage of better maneuverability. After that, it
>is a matter of choice. I ride a LWB bike (the Ryan Vanguard) and I rarely
>have a problem with turning radius, even when negotiating the car stopping
>posts at the start of bike trails. A LWB bike might be slightly heavier,
>but my Ryan is less than 30 lbs which isn't bad for a big chro-moly bike.
^^^^
  this very much depends. I ride an swb recumbent which is a
tricycle architecture (two wheels front, one back) - I find this as
stable as an LWB (I have a Peer Gynt) with at least some of the
advantages of a "conventional" swb in terms of turning circle.


>For speed the high handlebar LWB bikes like the Tour Easy are the clear
>winners. A fully faired Tour Easy with a recumbent conditioned rider will
>probably be about 5 mph faster than the same rider on a diamond frame.
>This is probably best case unless you start getting exotic. Also keep
>in mind that it takes ~500 miles for a well conditioned rider to develop
>the muscles required to ride a recumbent fast. You will use your quads
>more and in a slightly different way. Your first few hundred miles will
>be slower than you are now on your diamond frame.
^^^^^
  again, not qute convinced - the rider profile does not seem that
different on an unfaired buke, and if you have a fairing, why worry
?


>by getting out of the saddle and hammering up them standing the entire
>way, then you will be slower on a recumbent. If like the other 90% of
>the cycling population you sit on your seat and find a low gear to climb
>a hill then you will be no slower and possibly faster on a recumbent
>on hills. I have done over 4,000 feet of climbing in a single day on
>my Ryan on a charity ride and I finished in the middle of the pack. I
>don't climb any slower on my recumbent than I did on my old sport/tour
>bike. Most people are very impressed when I tell them the hills I've
>taken the bike up, and even more impressed when I tell them the average
>speed. Contrary to popular myth RECUMBENTS CAN CLIMB HILLS!
^^^^
  couldn't agree more, this is one of the cycle myths of our time


>|>     stability.  Was this just my lack of skill, and something that would
>|>     get better as I gained familiarity with it?
>|> 
>They lack low speed stability. It does get better with practice, but you
>will never do a track stand on a recumbent.
^^^^^
   get a trike :>)

>|>   * Can you easily put a rack and panniers on recumbents?  I need this
>|>     ability, and I don't want to buy new panniers.
>|> 
>The Ryan (and I believe most other bikes) will accept standard racks and
>panniers. Actually I find putting panniers on my Ryan much easier because
>I don't have to be concerned with my feet hitting the bags if I don't
>load them back far enough on the rack and load them a certain way.
^^^^^^
   but on most recumbents, you will not be able to fit front "low
rider" paniers

>|>
>|>   * How do recumbents handle winters?  I currently use a Trek 930 to
>|>     commute in the winter.  A recumbent has a lower CG than my 930, but
>|>     it seems like it might be harder to control on slippery surfaces.
>|>     Is this true, or false?  Since bicycles have the disadvantage that
>|>     they can fall over on slippery surfaces, I've been thinking of some
>|>     arrangement where a set of "training wheels" is put on the back of a
>|>     recumbent, but they don't touch the ground for normal riding.  Only
>|>     if you start to tip over do they make contact.  This would let you
>|>     ride over slippery surfaces and not fall completely over.  Has
>|>     anyone experimented with such a thing?
>|>
>I would suggest you stay with the 930 for wet riding unless you have to
>ride the recumbent. A lot of your balance depends on the traction of your
>rear tire instead of both tires on a regular bike. Recovery is harder so
>if your rear tire looses it, you will go down 99% of the time.
> 
^^^^^ 
   again, a tricycle arrangement is very stable - far more so than a
conventional bike. Talk to anyone who has tried to run a Trice over.


Richard

-- 
    ,_~o    Dr. Richard Taylor         email : rwt@uk.ac.york.ohm
  _-\_<,    CSEG, University of York   tel   : (44) 904 432351
(*)/'(*)    Y015DD, England            fax   : (44) 904 432335