Pedal Forward Bike

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Paul Cassel wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

If these crank-forward upright bicycles get people cycling who otherwise
would not, how can it be a bad thing, regardless of how they compare to
conventional uprights in performance? There is too much of the attitude
"if you can't ride a 'real' bicycle, do something else" - examples in
the bicycle retail industry (not to mention Usenet) are easy to
encounter. The crank-forward design "could" get a lot more people on
bicycles, but I expect that most LBS will not want to sell them.

The crank-forward geometry is certainly a better alternative to people
who deliberately mis-adjust their saddle height so they can put both
feet on the ground while seated.

As for the RANS, I have not yet tried their crank-forward bicycles yet,
but as a RANS owner for over 8 years, I am pleased with the design,
quality and service they provide.

I think people on this ng are underestimating how uncomfortable a
bicycle is to normal folks in the US. Let's not get into an obese
argument as you need to take people as you find them.

I've tried introducing two women to bicycle riding and both tried, but
then let it die out due to comfort. Either would have been comfortable
on this bike.

Both women tried those 'comfort' bikes which seem to mass about 20 kg
and perform poorly on hills or anywhere.

I think most of us avid riders think of the example of the Netherlands,
and don't realize how hard it is to ride a bike when the distances
aren't short and there are virtually no hills in town.

The house where I live, for example, is about 5 km from the nearest
rapid-transit station. The _easiest_ route by bike takes you up a 1 km
long, 10% grade. I don't really see the Dutch trying that.

I agree with you here. If it gets folks on the bikes, and also causes
some people to view bikes as transport, not just exercise, then they are
good things.

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

We would all benefit from more bicycles and less motor vehicles on the
public roads. However, there is an elitist element that (on some level)
disparages those who do not do their "thing", and sees no need to
accommodate these people.

The crank-forward bicycles have the advantage of being much more like a
"conventional" bicycle than a recumbent, while providing much of the
comfort advantages that a recumbent does to an inexperienced and/or
casual rider.

[1] For this day and age.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Chalo

In article . com,
Chalo writes:
Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.


cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Oct 7, 8:20 pm, Chalo wrote:
Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:



Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Chalo

I must respectfully disagree (and I've never ridden anything but
conventional bikes myself and probably never well). I think this part
of your statement is key:

(snipped) Almost anybody of relatively
normal size and physical ability (snip)

Some people aren't of either/or normal size or physical ability. For
riders of shorter stature it's often an issue of whether or not they
can get both feet on the ground when stopped. The feet forward bikes
make it easier for them to do this, making it more likely that they
will ride. I'm sure they will remain a niche market, but there will be
some who find they suit their needs.

Smokey

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article . com,
Chalo writes:
Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

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

In article . com,
Chalo writes:
Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Oct 7, 10:26 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel, surely they can also
stop and be off the saddle. What it /does/ take is the realization
that the saddle is not a seat -- it's a component of a distributed
network of supports, including pedals and handlebar. Plus the
realization that one's tuchas doesn't necessarily have to be permanently
nailed down to the saddle.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. That's exactly it, imo. Lots of people retain mis-
apprehensions about what a bicycle seat is really for and how it
should be used.

Robert

R.

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

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

In article . com,
Chalo writes:
Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Crank-forward bikes, as I have seen them, are a nice solution for
people
who have a hard time riding conventional bikes due to balance issues.
The comfort might be a nice advantage, too, but they're yet another
solution to a niche problem, not a fundamental failing of
conventional
bicycle design.

The target market is not relatively young, fit riders like Ryan, or
older fit riders who are lucky enough to not have comfort problems.
People in these categories (for the most part) lack the experience to
have empathy for those who try "conventional" [1] bicycles and give up
soon afterwards due to discomfort. These people are not going to stick
with cycling long enough to benefit from "proper fitting".

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Y'know how ya sorta scootch back in the saddle to
get some extra leg extension to power over low rollers
instead of going through the bother of shifting gears?
I think that's what that forward BB/crank thing on
Townie Electras and suchlike is all about -- a virtual
low gear.

No, because among other things, you can't easily (if at all) stand up on
these things, the virtual low gear of choice on safety bicycles.

I'm not talking about standing-pedalling; I'm talking about
/seated/ pedalling over terrainal lumps 'n humps. I know you
speedsters like to take 'em en danseuse.

The designers are quite explicit about the design goal of these bikes,
which has been achived: flat-footing at a stop combined with a correct
amount of leg extension to the pedals.

You can think of them as the least amount of recumbency possible for
flat-footing, or the most amount of recumbency possible without being
attached to the pedals (clipless or clips).

It's not a bad idea for people with balance problems, or people who find
bike riding scary. My wife was not and is not a confident (or fast)
cyclist, and the preliminary solution to that problem was a BMX with a
relatively tall (by BMX standards) seat position: the low standover
helped, along with the small wheels (I don't know whether that was a
psychological thing or a handling thing). She might have benefited from
a foot-forward bike.

Stopping while seated and putting a foot down is just plain ugly.

It doesn't take an acrobatic sense of balance to merely stop and
stand astride one's bike with one foot aready on the pedal and
the other foot down on the pavement. If one has enough sense of
balance to keep a bike upright while awheel

....well...that was a problem, too.

At any rate, the most successful solution so far was a rather oddball
tandem I bought.

One of those half-mixte thingies?

Nooo. Rather weirder than that.

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.

--
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

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
bikes, when I weighed over 400 pounds. 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.

Perhaps you are right. I'm hardly able to argue counter to this.

I can only add that I found the 'comfort' style safety bicycles
absolutely miserable to ride. They had unresponsive 'sodden' feeling
frames, were very heavy on hills and not at all comfortable compared to
my 'racing' style bikes. Yet they are sold to out of shape newbies and
hopeful commuters. Personally speaking, if I had to ride what's sold as
a comfort bike, I'd walk.

OTOH, I found the RANS to be truly comfortable and pleasant riding from
a bicycle view. It weighed maybe 24 lbs but felt responsive and fun to
ride where the comfort bikes didn't. From my narrow and inexpert view,
putting a newbie on a comfort bike is to get them to swear off bicycling.

The RANS is a good solution for my enthusiast friend whose injuries
prevent him from riding conventional bikes. I think a newbie would also
prefer riding a good bicycle instead of a overweight lead pipe junker
(my read).

-paul

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.

Chalo


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.

--------

.....As to the RANS bikes, they are more comfortable, by the way that
they provide more area to sit on (even though the seat pans are flexible
plastic, the central area has a flat metal bracket under it--I own a
Fusion, so I know).

Every now and then when I am riding the Fusion or the LWB recumbent bike
in town, total strangers will ask if they can try /sitting/ on it. I had
"regular" bicycles for 15 years before I got into recumbents--and NOBODY
ever asked me if they could sit on ANY of those bikes.
~