"Crank forward" bikes get mainstream press

Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

Matt O.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:50:17 -0500, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

ITYM "the seat low and well behind the BB".

The Rans Zenetik pictured wouldn't interest me. The radical seatpost
angle means that the strain on that component and on the seat tube of
the frame is rather larger than normal, I question whether one could
stand to pedal, it would be difficult for the rider to quickly lift
off of the seat for traversal of bumps, and it has squirrel-jam
wheels. I like the long wheelbase, but that's about all.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:50:17 -0500, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

ITYM "the seat low and well behind the BB".

The Rans Zenetik pictured wouldn't interest me.

"RANS" should always be all capital letters.

The radical seatpost angle means that the strain on that component and on the seat tube
of the frame is rather larger than normal,

The cantilevered portion of the seat tube is fairly short. As for
strain on the seat post, that depends not only on the load applied, but
the moment of inertia of its cross-section.

Remember, P/A + My/I.

I question whether one could
stand to pedal, it would be difficult for the rider to quickly lift
off of the seat for traversal of bumps, and it has squirrel-jam
wheels. I like the long wheelbase, but that's about all.

There are pictures of riders standing on the Zenetik.

The standard RANS Zenetik Tour has [gasp] 36-spoke, 3-cross wheels:
http://www.ransbikes.com/zenetik%20tour.htm.

--
Tom Sherman

In article , Werehatrack
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:50:17 -0500, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

ITYM "the seat low and well behind the BB".

The Rans Zenetik pictured wouldn't interest me. The radical seatpost
angle means that the strain on that component and on the seat tube of
the frame is rather larger than normal, I question whether one could
stand to pedal, it would be difficult for the rider to quickly lift
off of the seat for traversal of bumps, and it has squirrel-jam
wheels. I like the long wheelbase, but that's about all.

RANS has engineered a response to (your concern) the direction of load
placed upon the seat-tube/seatpost; it's explained, albeit vaguely, in
one of its 'articles' at [http://www.ransbikes.com/ITR32.htm].

Further, RANS asserts that the position of the crank vis other controls
negates the need to stand on the pedals: "With the crank forward more
than a conventional bike and the bars placed low, just above the knees,
you can pull yourself down into the pedals. Using this technique it is
easy to apply more than your weight to the pedals, which is all
standing on the pedals will provide..." Hmmm.

Any impartial, long term, trials conducted on these bikes?

Luke

Matt O'Toole wrote:
Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

Matt O.

Now all we need is 'citys' where they can be ridden...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:37:26 -0500, Luke
wrote:

In article , Werehatrack
wrote:

The Rans Zenetik pictured wouldn't interest me. The radical seatpost
angle means that the strain on that component and on the seat tube of
the frame is rather larger than normal, I question whether one could
stand to pedal, it would be difficult for the rider to quickly lift
off of the seat for traversal of bumps, and it has squirrel-jam
wheels. I like the long wheelbase, but that's about all.

RANS has engineered a response to (your concern) the direction of load
placed upon the seat-tube/seatpost; it's explained, albeit vaguely, in
one of its 'articles' at [http://www.ransbikes.com/ITR32.htm].

There's also the matter of the posterior jounce factor when you hit a
bump. I greatly prefer to be out of the saddle when I hit rough
spots; my legs are much better at soaking up that motion than any
saddle I've ever encountered. (The only 'bents I've ridden, OTOH, had
more of a seat than a saddle, and did a better job of spreading the
load.)

Further, RANS asserts that the position of the crank vis other controls
negates the need to stand on the pedals: "With the crank forward more
than a conventional bike and the bars placed low, just above the knees,
you can pull yourself down into the pedals. Using this technique it is
easy to apply more than your weight to the pedals, which is all
standing on the pedals will provide..." Hmmm.

See my earlier comments; there's more than one reason to get out of
the saddle, and the "pull down" factor cited has its own set of
problems.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 13 Feb 2006 05:54:54 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:


Matt O'Toole wrote:
Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

Matt O.

Now all we need is 'citys' where they can be ridden...

Indiana, perhaps?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:54:54 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Now all we need is 'citys' where they can be ridden...

Isn't this the truth!

It's a shame how the Southeast is drawing so many retirees to new
subdivisions where they'll be prisoners in their own homes once their
driving days are over.

The sick thing is that this region, in this day and age, has probably the
largest spread ever between construction cost and selling price, so
there's plenty of margin for developers to be required to provide land,
infrastructure, and appropriate design for bike/ped access. Also, I'm
sure all the new property tax revenue is more than enough to pay for 2'
wider lanes on all the new suburban arterials, as well as older ones that
are being "widened."

Matt O.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:48:51 +0000, Werehatrack wrote:

There's also the matter of the posterior jounce factor when you hit a
bump. I greatly prefer to be out of the saddle when I hit rough
spots; my legs are much better at soaking up that motion than any
saddle I've ever encountered. (The only 'bents I've ridden, OTOH, had
more of a seat than a saddle, and did a better job of spreading the
load.)

Most people who would be in the market for this kind of bike are not the
ones who would understand getting out of the saddle to avoid bumps.

No one seems to have noticed the real reason why they can claim that their
bikes are so good climbing hills. It's not, per se, the seat tube angle,
but the saddle that has that ridge in the back to provide leverage.
IÂ*believe such saddles are illegal for racing since they really do
provide an advantage.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

Werehatrack wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:50:17 -0500, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

Wired has an article this week on "crank forward" bikes -- ones with the
seat low and behind the saddle so the rider can reach the ground with
their feet:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_30

ITYM "the seat low and well behind the BB".

The Rans Zenetik pictured wouldn't interest me....

The market for the crank forward (CF) semi-upright bicycles is
typically not the regular road bike rider who is satisfied with his/her
bicycle, but those who have comfort issues with conventional road bikes
[1] but find recumbents overly different, complex or expensive.

If the CF bikes get people out riding on a regular basis who would
otherwise not do so, this is a good thing (unless one is an insecure
person who has to build himself/herself up by denigrating those who
ride and wear anything but the professional team replica clothing and
equipment).

[1] Most new riders, or even regular road bike riders after a layoff
(e.g. winter).

--
Tom Sherman