I "rode"my first 'bent: first impressions

Hiya!

I've had a stationary recumbent bike that I use for exercising for the
last 2 years which has over 4,560 miles on it, which would be approx.
7344.xx kms, so I thought I was in pretty good shape when I decided to
test ride an Ebike 'bent.

The seat was very comfy. I can only tell you that from my personal
experience, riding a 'bent is different from riding a DF bike.
Primairily (sp?) because all of your weight is on the back wheel, or
so I have been told. Therefore, there is no weight distribution across
the frame of the bike to make things easier as they are on a "regular"
bike. Add to that that the comments of another poster, (whose name I
cannot remember), that you can steer the bicycle with two fingers, and
its challenging. Most of the time, I found myself overcompensating, as
far as the steering goes, which of course was sort of a deja vu
experience for me of when I first began to learn to ride a bike. Hey,
at least I didn't fall off.

All of which reminds me of another posters comments, who I wish I
could credit with the remark. S/he said:

Go out and buy the cheapest / inexpensive 'bent you can find (I'm
paraphrasing) because being a novice, you won't have anything to
compare it to anyway. That certainly was true in my case.

Mooch

Mooch wrote:

Hiya!

I've had a stationary recumbent bike that I use for exercising for the
last 2 years which has over 4,560 miles on it, which would be approx.
7344.xx kms, so I thought I was in pretty good shape when I decided to
test ride an Ebike 'bent.

Was it a BikeE: http://www.ihpva.org/com/BikeE/BikeE.grey.jpeg?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Hiya Tom,

Thanks for the post. I wouldn't *swear* to it, but it looks like the
one. They said that it sold for $1,400USD originally. if that helps.

Why do you ask?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:20:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mooch wrote:

Hiya!

I've had a stationary recumbent bike that I use for exercising for the
last 2 years which has over 4,560 miles on it, which would be approx.
7344.xx kms, so I thought I was in pretty good shape when I decided to
test ride an Ebike 'bent.

Was it a BikeE: http://www.ihpva.org/com/BikeE/BikeE.grey.jpeg?

Bit steep for that one considering it's an orphan bike

"Mooch" wrote in message
...
Hiya Tom,

Thanks for the post. I wouldn't *swear* to it, but it looks like the
one. They said that it sold for $1,400USD originally. if that helps.

Why do you ask?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:20:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mooch wrote:

Hiya!

I've had a stationary recumbent bike that I use for exercising for the
last 2 years which has over 4,560 miles on it, which would be approx.
7344.xx kms, so I thought I was in pretty good shape when I decided to
test ride an Ebike 'bent.

Was it a BikeE: http://www.ihpva.org/com/BikeE/BikeE.grey.jpeg?

Mooch wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:20:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:


Mooch wrote:


Hiya!

I've had a stationary recumbent bike that I use for exercising for the
last 2 years which has over 4,560 miles on it, which would be approx.
7344.xx kms, so I thought I was in pretty good shape when I decided to
test ride an Ebike 'bent.

Was it a BikeE: http://www.ihpva.org/com/BikeE/BikeE.grey.jpeg?

Hiya Tom,

Thanks for the post. I wouldn't *swear* to it, but it looks like the
one. They said that it sold for $1,400USD originally. if that helps.

Why do you ask?

"Ebike" is an upright with integrated electrical assist, so I thought it
was likely a BikeE. [1]

If the MSRP was $1400 [2], it was most likely an RX with rear suspension
and mid-drive:
http://schellers.com/site/images/library/large/bikee_RX-silver_f.jpg.

[1] I have noticed that people often say 'E - bike'; saying 'bikey' must
seen unmanly.
[2] Likely 2002 model year, as BikeE went out of business in a rather
controversial manner, dying a slow death while publicly denying it.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

"Mooch" wrote

test ride an Ebike 'bent.

Most likely BikeE, as noted subsequently.

all of your weight is on the back wheel, or
so I have been told. Therefore, there is no weight distribution across
the frame of the bike to make things easier as they are on a "regular"
bike.

Yes, the front of the BikeE may be somewhat lightly loaded. To
some extent, it depends on rider leg length and frame length. BikeE
made regular, XL and XXL frames. I have an XL and with a 44in
x-seam, do not find the front too lightly loaded except when going
up quite steep inclines. Heavier, taller riders are probably better
off with an XL/XXL frame.

I found myself overcompensating, as
far as the steering goes,

Small wheel, steering geometry, slow speed, and different body/balance
position are all factors that may contribute to "squirrelly" feeling
when first riding a BikeE or other recumbent bikes. Most people's
experience is that you get used to it reasonably quickly. I have two
other recumbents in addition to the BikeE, a long wheel base (LWB)
Easy Racer and a short wheel base (SWB) Volae. The BikeE is
by far the most "maneuverable" of the three at slow speeds.

All of which reminds me of another posters comments, who I wish I
could credit with the remark. S/he said:

Go out and buy the cheapest / inexpensive 'bent you can find (I'm
paraphrasing) because being a novice, you won't have anything to
compare it to anyway. That certainly was true in my case.

Well, test ride as many as you can, certainly. There are very different
geometries in recumbent bikes. Many people seem to start with compact
log wheel base (CLWB) recumbents. If you can find an XL BikeE for a
good price, or a RANS Tailwind or similar, go for it. You might also
consider a LWB with a low bottom bracket (Easy Racers, EZ-x, etc.)

Welcome to rolling recumbency!

Jon Meinecke

Mooch wrote:

Go out and buy the cheapest / inexpensive 'bent you can find (I'm
paraphrasing) because being a novice, you won't have anything to
compare it to anyway. That certainly was true in my case.

Don't do that, it might be the wrong one!

You can compare by test riding a lot of different things. IME the case
is (at least in Europe) that 'bentmongers are happy for potential buyers
to play at considerable length on a variety of mounts.

"Recumbent" is, IMHO, not a very useful classification of a bike. At
least, no more useful than "upright". You wouldn't (if you're sane!)
buy an upright with no basis other than price, you'd buy it on fitness
for purpose. You wouldn't buy an MTB for road racing, or a drop bar
racer for an urban runabout. 'Bents have the same general
classifications as uprights: tourers, racers, folders, urban etc.
Shortlist ones designed for what you want to do on them /beyond/
"sitting on a comfy chair" and then test as many as you can in that
category.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/