The perfect recumbent?

On May 18, 10:09*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On May 17, 2:26 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
On May 15, 5:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

I stopped by my local bike shop the other day in Sioux Falls and found
out
that the Bacchetta Agio has been replaced by the Ballandere. This is a
medium wheel base recumbent which is what is most suitable for 99% of
us.
I
could not help but notice how much this latest MWB resembles the RANS
Stratus of olden times.

The bike shop owner told me something about the Agio not being stiff
enough. No doubt, that is because there are lots of 300 pound gorillas
trying to ride recumbents. When you are that heavy no bike will ever be
stiff enough.

I am convinced that the perfect recumbent for almost all of us is a MWB
recumbent with a crank only slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering. The Bacchetta SWBs are for the birds, but they are very close
to
getting the MWB exactly right. What do you think?

Perfect recumbent??? There is no such thing! It is presumptuous to
assume that one can make a definitive statement regarding what is the
perfect and most suitable recumbent design for 99% of recumbent
riders. That is a decision that can only be made by the individual
rider. It is a given that if there were an ideal recumbent, there
would not be such variability in design.

It is not at all difficult to figure out what type of recumbent is most
suitable for most riders.
It may not be difficult to figure out what type of recumbent is most

suitable for oneself, but it is difficult to impossible to determine
what type of recumbent is suitable for most riders.

Once you know what kind of riding the cyclist likes to do, everything else
follows as from A to Z.

Once one know what kind of riding one likes to do, one can make an
informed decision for oneself, not the recumbent universe. Each and
everyone has to make their own decision one which is not yours and/or
or you dictatorial mindset to make.

Most recumbent riders are elderly, want to be
comfortable with an easy handling bike, and only ride a bit around town
for
a couple of hours at best. A MWB as I have described it above satisfies
all
of these very minimal requirements.
For you perhaps, but your requirements are not necessarily the

requirements of other recumbent riders.

I am stating what I think are the requirements for most recumbent cyclists.
The racers are few and far between.


AND, I am stating that you are neither know the requirements for most
recumbent cyclists and are not entitle to not entitled to decide what
is best for them even if you did.

Of course if you are young and want to go fast, it is possible that there
may be other recumbents better suited for that purpose. But I go by what I
see, not by any theoretical nonsense. 99% of us who ride recumbents are
elderly (over 40). A young person on a recumbent is a rare sight indeed!
If you are opposed to theoretical nonsense, then why do you espouse

theoretical nonsense??? * Where do you get your facts and figures from
(99%???). * A Darwinian notion (think natural selection) comes to mind
here. *If there were an ideal recumbent for most or 99% of us, then
there would only be a single recumbent design available for
purchase. * Diversity of recumbent design is confirmation that no
single design is suitable for most recumbent riders. * Recumbent
variety in the marketplace and purchasing trends of the buying public
both serve to contradict your assertion.

The variety and diversity of recumbents is due to recumbent manufacturers
who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground.

MORE theoretical nonsense!!! So your supposition is that
manufacturers who don't know thier asses from a hole in the ground are
manufacturing recumbents which are not suitable for the majority (99%)
of recumbent riders??? How luDicrous. It is a given that recumbent
manufacturers would not manufacture a diverse variety of recumbents
unless there was a marketplace (read a buying public willing to
purchase). Manufacturers are afterall in the business of making
money. This is self-evident elementary economic principle which is
not subject to debate.

Let's face it, not
everyone is a brilliant thinker like I am. There only needs to be one
recumbent design for 99% of us who are not racers the same as it is for
uprights. The Bacchetta Ballandere comes as close to being that one design
as any other bike I can think of.

Oh "brilliant thinker", see what I said above in this regards. Now it
is your prerogative to maintain the untenable if you wish, but don't
mistake obstinance for genius.

The design for the upright has been perfected and it is not much different
now than it was a hundred years ago. It was uncomfortable then and it is
still uncomfortable, but it is fast and it handles well. The exact same
situation should exist for the recumbent (except for the discomfort factor)
and it would except for the fact that there is no mass market for them and
so small recumbent manufacturers have indulged themselves in totally asinine
designs. Some recumbents are barely rideable.

If you were personally to ever meet some of these recumbent manufacturers,
you would immediately realize what assholes they are. Frankly, I think most
of them are just plain crazy.

A MWB recumbent with the crank slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering is the perfect recumbent for all of us (except racers).

In your errant opinion you mean. No matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more true than it was with the first
utterance (logical fallacy ... agumentum ad nauseum). Repitition is
no substitute for argumentation.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

This argument is too complicated by personalities to make much sense
of it.

The perfect recumbent is an oxymoron.

The perfect recumbent for Rider X is a workable concept. It would take
into account who and what he is, how and where he rides, why he rides,
even his psychology.

As an example of a probably common psychological barrier, when I was
looking at recumbents, the first ones I struck off my list were those
where the rider's feet are in front of the head tube. I've had broken
ankles and don't fancy them again. The second lot i struck off were
the full recumbents where the rider's head has to be raised to an
uncomfortable position to see the road and its hazards. Thus my ideal
recumbent would come from those with the less extreme body position
and with the pedals behind the head tube.

In fact that left quite a few to choose from. But if some Communist--
sorry, I mean Recumbent Central Committee had mandated a single
"perfect" recumbent, I and a million others wouldn't even have come
looking at recumbents.

By the way, the only reason I didn't buy the last -- not only nearly
suitable but very attractive -- recumbent on my list, which I
considered for a six weeks, was my geographic milieu: I couldn't
determine how it would suit the many hills I ride on, and in
particular the steep hill in front of my house.

"One size fits everyone to perfection" is one of the silliest concepts
mankind ever got taken in by.

Disclaimer: it is of course possible that whoever started this thread
has a sense of humour. But I wouldn't count on it. Except for Al
Gore's partisans, with whom they anyway overlap, it is hard to think
of a more humourless group than recumbent advocates. (That's another
reason to weigh not only the machine on the shortlist but who sells it
and who promotes it most shrilly.)

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

On May 21, 1:50*pm, JimmyMac wrote:
On May 18, 10:09*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On May 17, 2:26 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
On May 15, 5:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

I stopped by my local bike shop the other day in Sioux Falls and found
out
that the Bacchetta Agio has been replaced by the Ballandere. This is a
medium wheel base recumbent which is what is most suitable for 99% of
us.
I
could not help but notice how much this latest MWB resembles the RANS
Stratus of olden times.

The bike shop owner told me something about the Agio not being stiff
enough. No doubt, that is because there are lots of 300 pound gorillas
trying to ride recumbents. When you are that heavy no bike will ever be
stiff enough.

I am convinced that the perfect recumbent for almost all of us is a MWB
recumbent with a crank only slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering. The Bacchetta SWBs are for the birds, but they are very close
to
getting the MWB exactly right. What do you think?

Perfect recumbent??? There is no such thing! It is presumptuous to
assume that one can make a definitive statement regarding what is the
perfect and most suitable recumbent design for 99% of recumbent
riders. That is a decision that can only be made by the individual
rider. It is a given that if there were an ideal recumbent, there
would not be such variability in design.

It is not at all difficult to figure out what type of recumbent is most
suitable for most riders.
It may not be difficult to figure out what type of recumbent is most

suitable for oneself, but it is difficult to impossible to determine
what type of recumbent is suitable for most riders.

Once you know what kind of riding the cyclist likes to do, everything else
follows as from A to Z.

Once one know what kind of riding one likes to do, one can make an
informed decision for oneself, not the recumbent universe. *Each and
everyone has to make their own decision one which is not yours and/or
or you dictatorial mindset to make.

Most recumbent riders are elderly, want to be
comfortable with an easy handling bike, and only ride a bit around town
for
a couple of hours at best. A MWB as I have described it above satisfies
all
of these very minimal requirements.
For you perhaps, but your requirements are not necessarily the

requirements of other recumbent riders.

I am stating what I think are the requirements for most recumbent cyclists.
The racers are few and far between.

AND, I am stating that you are neither know the requirements for most
recumbent cyclists and are not entitle to not entitled to decide what
is best for them even if you did.



Of course if you are young and want to go fast, it is possible that there
may be other recumbents better suited for that purpose. But I go by what I
see, not by any theoretical nonsense. 99% of us who ride recumbents are
elderly (over 40). A young person on a recumbent is a rare sight indeed!
If you are opposed to theoretical nonsense, then why do you espouse

theoretical nonsense??? * Where do you get your facts and figures from
(99%???). * A Darwinian notion (think natural selection) comes to mind
here. *If there were an ideal recumbent for most or 99% of us, then
there would only be a single recumbent design available for
purchase. * Diversity of recumbent design is confirmation that no
single design is suitable for most recumbent riders. * Recumbent
variety in the marketplace and purchasing trends of the buying public
both serve to contradict your assertion.

The variety and diversity of recumbents is due to recumbent manufacturers
who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground.

MORE theoretical nonsense!!! *So your supposition is that
manufacturers who don't know thier asses from a hole in the ground are
manufacturing recumbents which are not suitable for the majority (99%)
of recumbent riders??? *How luDicrous. *It is a given that recumbent
manufacturers would not manufacture a diverse variety of recumbents
unless there was a marketplace (read a buying public willing to
purchase). *Manufacturers are afterall in the business of making
money. *This is self-evident elementary economic principle which is
not subject to debate.

Let's face it, not
everyone is a brilliant thinker like I am. There only needs to be one
recumbent design for 99% of us who are not racers the same as it is for
uprights. The Bacchetta Ballandere comes as close to being that one design
as any other bike I can think of.

Oh "brilliant thinker", see what I said above in this regards. *Now it
is your prerogative to maintain the untenable if you wish, but don't
mistake obstinance for genius.

The design for the upright has been perfected and it is not much different
now than it was a hundred years ago. It was uncomfortable then and it is
still uncomfortable, but it is fast and it handles well. The exact same
situation should exist for the recumbent (except for the discomfort factor)
and it would except for the fact that there is no mass market for them and
so small recumbent manufacturers have indulged themselves in totally asinine
designs. Some recumbents are barely rideable.

If you were personally to ever meet some of these recumbent manufacturers,
you would immediately realize what assholes they are. Frankly, I think most
of them are just plain crazy.

A MWB recumbent with the crank slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering is the perfect recumbent for all of us (except racers).

In your errant opinion you mean. * No matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more true than it was with the first
utterance (logical fallacy ... agumentum ad nauseum). *Repitition is
no substitute for argumentation.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 10:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Once you know what kind of riding the cyclist likes to do, everything else
follows as from A to Z.

Once one know what kind of riding one likes to do, one can make an
informed decision for oneself, not the recumbent universe. Each and
everyone has to make their own decision one which is not yours and/or
or you dictatorial mindset to make.

Nonsense, I know better than any user what is good for him. I ought to be
charging for my expertise.
[...]

I am stating what I think are the requirements for most recumbent
cyclists.
The racers are few and far between.

AND, I am stating that you are neither know the requirements for most
recumbent cyclists and are not entitle to not entitled to decide what
is best for them even if you did.

Ah, but I am. And of course you aren't.
[...]

The variety and diversity of recumbents is due to recumbent manufacturers
who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground.

MORE theoretical nonsense!!! So your supposition is that
manufacturers who don't know thier asses from a hole in the ground are
manufacturing recumbents which are not suitable for the majority (99%)
of recumbent riders??? How luDicrous. It is a given that recumbent
manufacturers would not manufacture a diverse variety of recumbents
unless there was a marketplace (read a buying public willing to
purchase). Manufacturers are afterall in the business of making
money. This is self-evident elementary economic principle which is
not subject to debate.

The absence of a mass market means that small manufacturers can indulge
their fantasies. The average recumbent buyer will not know anything about
recumbents and will assume, like you, that the recumbent manufacturers know
what they are doing. But they don't. It is why most recumbent manufacturers
go out of business after a few years.
[...]

A MWB recumbent with the crank slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering is the perfect recumbent for all of us (except racers).

In your errant opinion you mean. No matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more true than it was with the first
utterance (logical fallacy ... agumentum ad nauseum). Repitition is
no substitute for argumentation.

My brilliance is beyond your poor powers of perception. I suggest you stick
to computers and leave the serious business of recumbent bicycle design to a
genius like me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

This argument is too complicated by personalities to make much sense
of it.

There is only one Great One here who is making any sense. Only a small
mind would be lost. Andre Jute ... meet Jim McNamara.

The perfect recumbent is an oxymoron.

A perfect recumbent as related to frame design is no different than a
perfect upright as related to frame design. I think it is commonly
referred to as a diamond frame.

The perfect recumbent for Rider X is a workable concept. It would take
into account who and what he is, how and where he rides, why he rides,
even his psychology.

None of the above will apply to most bicycle riders. Most bicycle riders
ride around town for a couple of hours for fun and recreation. What is
there about this that you do not understand?

As an example of a probably common psychological barrier, when I was
looking at recumbents, the first ones I struck off my list were those
where the rider's feet are in front of the head tube. I've had broken
ankles and don't fancy them again. The second lot i struck off were
the full recumbents where the rider's head has to be raised to an
uncomfortable position to see the road and its hazards. Thus my ideal
recumbent would come from those with the less extreme body position
and with the pedals behind the head tube.

Just as I described in my perfect recumbent!

In fact that left quite a few to choose from. But if some Communist--
sorry, I mean Recumbent Central Committee had mandated a single
"perfect" recumbent, I and a million others wouldn't even have come
looking at recumbents.

Many more would be looking at recumbents if there were a single design
instead of the mishmash that presently prevails.

By the way, the only reason I didn't buy the last -- not only nearly
suitable but very attractive -- recumbent on my list, which I
considered for a six weeks, was my geographic milieu: I couldn't
determine how it would suit the many hills I ride on, and in
particular the steep hill in front of my house.

No recumbents do at all well on hills. You need an upright for hills.

"One size fits everyone to perfection" is one of the silliest concepts
mankind ever got taken in by.

It is only common sense to get the design of the recumbent right.

Disclaimer: it is of course possible that whoever started this thread
has a sense of humour. But I wouldn't count on it. Except for Al
Gore's partisans, with whom they anyway overlap, it is hard to think
of a more humourless group than recumbent advocates. (That's another
reason to weigh not only the machine on the shortlist but who sells it
and who promotes it most shrilly.)

All Usenet newsgroups that are unmoderated are equally idiotic. The only
humorless moron here is yourself. You must be a tech nerd (RBT). I suggest
you and Tom Sherman get together, have some Livingston Cellars Red Rose
and commiserate with one another on the trivia of bicycles. Leave the big
thinking to those of us who are capable of it.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

This argument is too complicated by personalities to make much sense
of it.

There is only one Great One here who is making any sense. Only a small
mind would be lost. Andre Jute ... meet Jim McNamara.

The perfect recumbent is an oxymoron.

A perfect recumbent as related to frame design is no different than a
perfect upright as related to frame design. I think it is commonly
referred to as a diamond frame.

The perfect recumbent for Rider X is a workable concept. It would take
into account who and what he is, how and where he rides, why he rides,
even his psychology.

None of the above will apply to most bicycle riders. Most bicycle riders
ride around town for a couple of hours for fun and recreation. What is
there about this that you do not understand?

As an example of a probably common psychological barrier, when I was
looking at recumbents, the first ones I struck off my list were those
where the rider's feet are in front of the head tube. I've had broken
ankles and don't fancy them again. The second lot i struck off were
the full recumbents where the rider's head has to be raised to an
uncomfortable position to see the road and its hazards. Thus my ideal
recumbent would come from those with the less extreme body position
and with the pedals behind the head tube.

Just as I described in my perfect recumbent!

In fact that left quite a few to choose from. But if some Communist--
sorry, I mean Recumbent Central Committee had mandated a single
"perfect" recumbent, I and a million others wouldn't even have come
looking at recumbents.

Many more would be looking at recumbents if there were a single design
instead of the mishmash that presently prevails.

By the way, the only reason I didn't buy the last -- not only nearly
suitable but very attractive -- recumbent on my list, which I
considered for a six weeks, was my geographic milieu: I couldn't
determine how it would suit the many hills I ride on, and in
particular the steep hill in front of my house.

No recumbents do at all well on hills. You need an upright for hills.

"One size fits everyone to perfection" is one of the silliest concepts
mankind ever got taken in by.

It is only common sense to get the design of the recumbent right.

Disclaimer: it is of course possible that whoever started this thread
has a sense of humour. But I wouldn't count on it. Except for Al
Gore's partisans, with whom they anyway overlap, it is hard to think
of a more humourless group than recumbent advocates. (That's another
reason to weigh not only the machine on the shortlist but who sells it
and who promotes it most shrilly.)

All Usenet newsgroups that are unmoderated are equally idiotic. The only
humorless moron here is yourself. You must be a tech nerd (RBT). I suggest
you and Tom Sherman get together, have some Livingston Cellars Red Rose
and commiserate with one another on the trivia of bicycles. Leave the big
thinking to those of us who are capable of it.
[...]

Hey Ed,

Your Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 is making the quoted text look original
and your original text look quoted. I suggest this fix:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/.

As for your final suggestion, until Mr. Jute retracts his lies about my
beliefs, I would not associate with him.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On May 21, 6:31*pm, Tom_Sherman
wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

This argument is too complicated by personalities to make much sense
of it.

There is only one Great One here who is making any sense. Only a small
mind would be lost. Andre Jute ... meet Jim McNamara.

The perfect recumbent is an oxymoron.

A perfect recumbent as related to frame design is no different than a
perfect upright as related to frame design. I think it is commonly
referred to as a diamond frame.

The perfect recumbent for Rider X is a workable concept. It would take
into account who and what he is, how and where he rides, why he rides,
even his psychology.

None of the above will apply to most bicycle riders. Most bicycle riders
ride around town for a couple of hours for fun and recreation. What is
there about this that you do not understand?

As an example of a probably common psychological barrier, when I was
looking at recumbents, the first ones I struck off my list were those
where the rider's feet are in front of the head tube. I've had broken
ankles and don't fancy them again. The second lot i struck off were
the full recumbents where the rider's head has to be raised to an
uncomfortable position to see the road and its hazards. Thus my ideal
recumbent would come from those with the less extreme body position
and with the pedals behind the head tube.

Just as I described in my perfect recumbent!

In fact that left quite a few to choose from. But if some Communist--
sorry, I mean Recumbent Central Committee had mandated a single
"perfect" recumbent, I and a million others wouldn't even have come
looking at recumbents.

Many more would be looking at recumbents if there were a single design
instead of the mishmash that presently prevails.

By the way, the only reason I didn't buy the last -- not only nearly
suitable but very attractive -- recumbent on my list, which I
considered for a six weeks, was my geographic milieu: I couldn't
determine how it would suit the many hills I ride on, and in
particular the steep hill in front of my house.

No recumbents do at all well on hills. You need an upright for hills.

"One size fits everyone to perfection" is one of the silliest concepts
mankind ever got taken in by.

It is only common sense to get the design of the recumbent right.

Disclaimer: it is of course possible that whoever started this thread
has a sense of humour. But I wouldn't count on it. Except for Al
Gore's partisans, with whom they anyway overlap, it is hard to think
of a more humourless group than recumbent advocates. (That's another
reason to weigh not only the machine on the shortlist but who sells it
and who promotes it most shrilly.)

All Usenet newsgroups that are unmoderated are equally idiotic. The only
humorless moron here is yourself. You must be a tech nerd (RBT). I suggest
you and Tom Sherman get together, have some Livingston Cellars Red Rose
and commiserate with one another on the trivia of bicycles. Leave the big
thinking to those of us who are capable of it.
[...]

Hey Ed,

Your Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 is making the quoted text look original
and your original text look quoted. I suggest this fix:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/.

As for your final suggestion, until Mr. Jute retracts his lies about my
beliefs, I would not associate with him.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

www.rxbargainpills.com

The cheapest place I've found anywhere to buy bargain Viagra.

On May 21, 1:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On May 18, 10:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Once you know what kind of riding the cyclist likes to do, everything else
follows as from A to Z.
Once one know what kind of riding one likes to do, one can make an

informed decision for oneself, not the recumbent universe. *Each and
everyone has to make their own decision one which is not yours and/or
or you dictatorial mindset to make.

Nonsense, I know better than any user what is good for him. I ought to be
charging for my expertise.
[...]

Egomaniacal Delusion is such a comfort.

I am stating what I think are the requirements for most recumbent
cyclists.
The racers are few and far between.
AND, I am stating that you neither know the requirements for most

recumbent cyclists and are not entitled to decide what
is best for them even if you did.

Ah, but I am. And of course you aren't.
[...]

Unable to put forth a valid logical argument, you predictably resort
to divergent dismissive gibberish. How typical.

The variety and diversity of recumbents is due to recumbent manufacturers
who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground.
MORE theoretical nonsense!!! *So your supposition is that

manufacturers who don't know thier asses from a hole in the ground are
manufacturing recumbents which are not suitable for the majority (99%)
of recumbent riders??? *How ludicrous. *It is a given that recumbent
manufacturers would not manufacture a diverse variety of recumbents
unless there was a marketplace (read a buying public willing to
purchase). *Manufacturers are afterall in the business of making
money. *This is self-evident elementary economic principle which is
not subject to debate.

The absence of a mass market means that small manufacturers can indulge
their fantasies. The average recumbent buyer will not know anything about
recumbents and will assume, like you, that the recumbent manufacturers know
what they are doing. But they don't. It is why most recumbent manufacturers
go out of business after a few years.
[...]

More theoretcal nonsense.

A MWB recumbent with the crank slightly below the seat and with above seat
steering is the perfect recumbent for all of us (except racers).
In your errant opinion you mean. * No matter how many times you repeat

something, it will not become any more true than it was with the first
utterance (logical fallacy ... agumentum ad nauseum). *Repitition is
no substitute for argumentation.

My brilliance is beyond your poor powers of perception.

Opinion stated as fact. In using my own words against me you do
nothing more than flatter me. If this is the best you can offer (read
repetition rather than a valid argument), this says more about your
alleged brilliance than you own self-serving accolades.

I suggest you stick
to computers and leave the serious business of recumbent bicycle design to a
genius like me.

You design recumbents??? Hope I beat Tom Sherman to asking the
question. I know about as much about bicycles as I do about
bicycles. If you know as much about bicycles as you do about
computers, you'd best stick to what librarians know best ... books.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On May 21, 6:31*pm, Tom_Sherman
wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

This argument is too complicated by personalities to make much sense
of it.

There is only one Great One here who is making any sense. Only a small
mind would be lost. Andre Jute ... meet Jim McNamara.

The perfect recumbent is an oxymoron.

A perfect recumbent as related to frame design is no different than a
perfect upright as related to frame design. I think it is commonly
referred to as a diamond frame.

The perfect recumbent for Rider X is a workable concept. It would take
into account who and what he is, how and where he rides, why he rides,
even his psychology.

None of the above will apply to most bicycle riders. Most bicycle riders
ride around town for a couple of hours for fun and recreation. What is
there about this that you do not understand?

As an example of a probably common psychological barrier, when I was
looking at recumbents, the first ones I struck off my list were those
where the rider's feet are in front of the head tube. I've had broken
ankles and don't fancy them again. The second lot i struck off were
the full recumbents where the rider's head has to be raised to an
uncomfortable position to see the road and its hazards. Thus my ideal
recumbent would come from those with the less extreme body position
and with the pedals behind the head tube.

Just as I described in my perfect recumbent!

In fact that left quite a few to choose from. But if some Communist--
sorry, I mean Recumbent Central Committee had mandated a single
"perfect" recumbent, I and a million others wouldn't even have come
looking at recumbents.

Many more would be looking at recumbents if there were a single design
instead of the mishmash that presently prevails.

By the way, the only reason I didn't buy the last -- not only nearly
suitable but very attractive -- recumbent on my list, which I
considered for a six weeks, was my geographic milieu: I couldn't
determine how it would suit the many hills I ride on, and in
particular the steep hill in front of my house.

No recumbents do at all well on hills. You need an upright for hills.

"One size fits everyone to perfection" is one of the silliest concepts
mankind ever got taken in by.

It is only common sense to get the design of the recumbent right.

Disclaimer: it is of course possible that whoever started this thread
has a sense of humour. But I wouldn't count on it. Except for Al
Gore's partisans, with whom they anyway overlap, it is hard to think
of a more humourless group than recumbent advocates. (That's another
reason to weigh not only the machine on the shortlist but who sells it
and who promotes it most shrilly.)

All Usenet newsgroups that are unmoderated are equally idiotic. The only
humorless moron here is yourself. You must be a tech nerd (RBT). I suggest
you and Tom Sherman get together, have some Livingston Cellars Red Rose
and commiserate with one another on the trivia of bicycles. Leave the big
thinking to those of us who are capable of it.
[...]

Hey Ed,

Your Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 is making the quoted text look original
and your original text look quoted. I suggest this fix:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/.

As for your final suggestion, until Mr. Jute retracts his lies about my
beliefs, I would not associate with him.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Tom,

I've tried to get the stubborn blockhead to recognize that the problem
is on his end and his to fix, but of course he had an excuse and
blamed the problem an others, what else would you expect. The guy
thinks he is never wrong ... a character flaw if you ask me.

Jim

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 6:31 pm, Tom_Sherman
wrote:
[...]
Hey Ed,

Your Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 is making the quoted text look original
and your original text look quoted. I suggest this fix:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/.
[...]

Tom,

I've tried to get the stubborn blockhead to recognize that the problem
is on his end and his to fix, but of course he had an excuse and
blamed the problem an others, what else would you expect. The guy
thinks he is never wrong ... a character flaw if you ask me.

Sigh ... nothing ever changes. JimmyMac, a computer guru, does not know how
to post from the Google website. Some others are equally ignorant. I add the
sequence marks however it is easiest for me to add them and they should not
be hard to figure out.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 6:31 pm, Tom_Sherman
wrote:
[...]
Hey Ed,

Your Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 is making the quoted text look original
and your original text look quoted. I suggest this fix:
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/.
[...]

Tom,

I've tried to get the stubborn blockhead to recognize that the problem
is on his end and his to fix, but of course he had an excuse and
blamed the problem an others, what else would you expect. The guy
thinks he is never wrong ... a character flaw if you ask me.

Sigh ... nothing ever changes. JimmyMac, a computer guru, does not know how
to post from the Google website. Some others are equally ignorant. I add the
sequence marks however it is easiest for me to add them and they should not
be hard to figure out.

There are no user options when posting from Google Groups that would
affect this quoting problem, so the fault either lies with Ed's
Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0 and/or Google.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll