Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: New wide platform spd pedals
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 09:59:32 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <vb1vgk$1h4h0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <kt63dj9hvaba7faaff8sv6vp2eplqi7atq@4ax.com>
 <wXjAO.19613$I0k6.2152@fx02.ams4>
 <s8m3dj9b4ikb49qtvothiofmk3pcchteiq@4ax.com>
 <o_kAO.154478$rzOa.37837@fx13.ams4> <vavcv6$12b78$1@dont-email.me>
 <h4l6djp7li296raj3t3mklij8sgh0c4fod@4ax.com>
 <mKKAO.150637$I0k6.86260@fx02.ams4> <vb0eqj$17bvt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 16:59:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c4c706ecca62e540ab02291934f2c4f2";
	logging-data="1610272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZvCq6XyDldtTBS2TaGy4x"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wZjnwQPJl7uYBGUm+VysEEqls74=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb0eqj$17bvt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5914

On 8/31/2024 8:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/31/2024 4:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:30:45 -0700, NFN Smith 
>>> <worldoff9908@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Stranely enough, since I have stopped seeking higher 
>>>>>> speeds, my
>>>>>> cadence has speeded up a bit, but alas, my legs do not 
>>>>>> acommodate high
>>>>>> cadence for very long. I've gone from the low sixties 
>>>>>> to the low
>>>>>> seventies
>>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t sound particularly mashy cadence either low 60’s
>>>>
>>>> Is there a difference between riding a recumbent and 
>>>> riding a
>>>> traditional diamond frame?
>>>>
>>>> Smith
>>>
>>> big difference. Try one out. You'll see.
>>>
>>
>> I’d assume much like traditional diamond framed bikes they 
>> differ
>> themselves, I’ve only used myself big heavy recumbent 
>> tandem bikes.
>>
>> Do see the semi framed two wheels ones as is a racetrack 
>> and recumbent club
>> near work!
> 
> I've done test rides on maybe 6 or 7 various models of 
> recumbents. I've also had about 6 friends who, for varying 
> amounts of time, rode recumbents. And for a while, I owned a 
> low recumbent tricycle that was given to me by a friend. My 
> impressions:
> 
> I found two wheel recumbents more difficult to balance than 
> normal bikes. I think the main reason is lower polar moment 
> of inertia with respect to the ground. (That's for the 
> engineers reading this.) A recumbent bike tends to tip 
> faster, just as a 6" ruler balanced on end tips much faster 
> than a yardstick balanced on end. (Extending that idea: I've 
> done test rides on at least two Ordinaries, or high wheel or 
> "penny farthing" bikes. They were amazingly easy to balance 
> at almost zero speed.)
> 
> Long wheelbase recumbents have another balance detriment, 
> which is slower lateral reactions due to the long wheelbase. 
> But short wheelbase recumbents may react quicker laterally 
> than a standard upright bike.
> 
> I didn't do any serious hill climbing on any recumbent, but 
> all the friends who rode them claimed they were much slower 
> uphill. I'm not positive of the reason, besides the typical 
> weight disadvantage. Since one's back is against the seat, 
> it seems one should be able to generate more leg force than 
> on an upright bike, where one's own weight is pretty much 
> the limit. I suspect the inability to get one's entire body 
> into the action is a partial explanation, but I don't know 
> for sure.
> 
> I think recumbents are at a disadvantage in traffic. A low 
> bike is much less conspicuous. Many recumbents sport tall 
> "safety flags" for that reason, but I can't say how much 
> those might help. The low position also reduces one's view 
> of surrounding traffic and upcoming hazards.
> 
> With a recumbent, hauling loads can be more of a problem, 
> mostly because typical panniers, bags, etc. are not designed 
> for them. This doesn't need to be the case (one student of 
> mine rode, in competition, a recumbent that won the IHPVA 
> "Practical Vehicle" contest one year) but as with almost 
> anything, custom or low production bags will be much more 
> expensive than standard issue bags.
> 
> Most riders seem to feel that recumbents are more 
> comfortable than upright bikes. That's an advantage.
> 
> Aerodynamics seem to be a bit better on a recumbent, but not 
> greatly better. The friend who rode a recumbent most 
> recently would coast the same speed I would when I was on my 
> aero bars or in a full tuck. Of course, I'd have to come out 
> of the tuck to pedal, when he would just resume pedaling. 
> But some have claimed that the churning of the out-front 
> cranks and legs imposes extra drag. A partial nose fairing 
> may help that.
> 
> I'm told a recumbent is typically much tougher to transport 
> than a normal bike. (So is our tandem, BTW.) A couple of my 
> recumbent friends bought vans specifically to haul those bikes.
> 
> I think a very significant point is that all my mentions of 
> friends riding recumbents are past tense. I don't know 
> anyone who rides a recumbent today. Every one of them 
> eventually decided the disadvantages exceeded the advantages.
> 
> 

+1 to all that, good overview.

I might add that when things go awry in traffic, when push 
comes to shove, regular bicycles have better, quicker 
maneuverability /in extremis/.
-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971