|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... First the Tailwind and Wave are discontinued, and now the Rocket. USians are too prejudiced against proper sized [1] wheels for RANS to sell their best value models. [1] ISO 406 and 305 millimeter. The Rocket was doomed from the moment RANS came up with the V-Rex. The Rocket was a good run around town sort of recumbent, but so is the V-Rex with the added advantage that it is also good for touring. A small rear Log wheel does not really make much sense. Sorry Ed, but the V-Rex came first. The Rocket was conceived as a less expensive alternative. The Rocket is better for touring than the V-Rex, since it has the same size wheels and a stiffer rear triangle. The Rocket is NOT better for touring. A small rear wheel means a big chain wheel up front in order to get proper gearing for the road. The V-Rex is a solidly built bike and is an ideal recumbent for touring if you like short wheelbase (which I don't). Besides, big guys look ridiculous on the Rocket. Touring requires lower gears than general road riding. A standard 52/42/30 triple crank on a Rocket is fine for touring. See http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/rocket.html for a touring Rocket. Yes, it is good for lower gears, but not so good for higher gears without getting into shifting difficulties. It is also easier to carry some gear on a V-Rex than on a Rocket, a not unimportant consideration. A 52/11 with a 47-406 tire is fine for pedaling up to about 30-mph. Any faster, and one is better off coasting anyways. We are considering touring here, not sprinting at the end of a race. The Rocket carries gear just as well as the V-Rex, and has better weight distribution to boot. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... [...] Touring requires lower gears than general road riding. A standard 52/42/30 triple crank on a Rocket is fine for touring. See http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/rocket.html for a touring Rocket. This is an interesting web page and goes to show what can be done with a short wheelbase set up for touring. However I can't help but think that there is no advantage to the Rocket over the V-Rex when it comes to touring. I have ridden both bikes briefly and they handle and feel about the same, but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... gotbent aka FRT rider wrote: "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... "Luddite Wacko" wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: } First the Tailwind and Wave are discontinued, and now the Rocket. } USians are too prejudiced against proper sized [1] wheels for RANS to } sell their best value models. } } [1] ISO 406 and 305 millimeter. } Add to that the downsizing of Rotator. 20/20s are becoming few and far between. Yes, the "bigger is better" USian attitude is hard to overcome. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate. Still a few 20-20-20 and 16-16-20 and 16-16-16 trikes around. The lateral loads multi-track vehicles apply to wheels make large diameters problematic. If you ride a trike conservatively, those lateral loads do not matter. On the other hand if you want to race a trike, then they do matter. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... [...] Touring requires lower gears than general road riding. A standard 52/42/30 triple crank on a Rocket is fine for touring. See http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/rocket.html for a touring Rocket. This is an interesting web page and goes to show what can be done with a short wheelbase set up for touring. However I can't help but think that there is no advantage to the Rocket over the V-Rex when it comes to touring. I have ridden both bikes briefly and they handle and feel about the same, Nonsense! I went to a shop intending to buy a V-Rex, but came home with a Rocket because it handled more intuitively. but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. The larger rear wheel makes getting a wider gear range easier with conventional components, but there is no other real advantage. I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. The better weight distribution of the Rocket makes the handling and braking superior to that of the V-Rex. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 1999 RANS Wave to Tailwind conversion 2000 RANS Rocket |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: [...] but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. The larger rear wheel makes getting a wider gear range easier with conventional components, but there is no other real advantage. Do not larger wheels roll more efficiently? In other words, don't you get a better flywheel effect? Also, do not larger wheels smooth out the road better? I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. The better weight distribution of the Rocket makes the handling and braking superior to that of the V-Rex. You do not get ideal weight distribution on any short wheelbase recumbent. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: [...] but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. The larger rear wheel makes getting a wider gear range easier with conventional components, but there is no other real advantage. Do not larger wheels roll more efficiently? In other words, don't you get a better flywheel effect? Also, do not larger wheels smooth out the road better? Do not confuse rolling resistance with angular momentum. The angular momentum of a bicycle wheel is minimal. To demonstrate, put a bicycle in a work stand and spin the rear wheel up to the equivalent rotational speed for 30-mph on the road. Squeeze the rear brake lever and notice how the wheel stops almost instantaneously. Now try stopping the bicycle and rider when traveling at 30-mph. Takes quite a bit longer, no? As for ride comfort, use a properly wide tire at reasonable inflation pressure, and the ride is fine. I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. The better weight distribution of the Rocket makes the handling and braking superior to that of the V-Rex. You do not get ideal weight distribution on any short wheelbase recumbent. Long wheelbase recumbents have the weight distribution issue, with the front wheels too lightly loaded. The longer wheelbase also makes low-speed balance more difficult. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: [...] but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. The larger rear wheel makes getting a wider gear range easier with conventional components, but there is no other real advantage. Do not larger wheels roll more efficiently? In other words, don't you get a better flywheel effect? Also, do not larger wheels smooth out the road better? Do not confuse rolling resistance with angular momentum. The angular momentum of a bicycle wheel is minimal. To demonstrate, put a bicycle in a work stand and spin the rear wheel up to the equivalent rotational speed for 30-mph on the road. Squeeze the rear brake lever and notice how the wheel stops almost instantaneously. Now try stopping the bicycle and rider when traveling at 30-mph. Takes quite a bit longer, no? As for ride comfort, use a properly wide tire at reasonable inflation pressure, and the ride is fine. I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. The better weight distribution of the Rocket makes the handling and braking superior to that of the V-Rex. You do not get ideal weight distribution on any short wheelbase recumbent. Long wheelbase recumbents have the weight distribution issue, with the front wheels too lightly loaded. The longer wheelbase also makes low-speed balance more difficult. Yes, I think you are correct in everything you say, but it does not explain why I prefer a long wheelbase to a short wheelbase. The bottom line is that I do not feel as safe and secure on a short wheelbase as I do on a long wheelbase. Something is obviously being overlooked. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Say it ain't so Joe! (er Randy)
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: [...] but the larger rear wheel confers an advantage on the V-Rex. The larger rear wheel makes getting a wider gear range easier with conventional components, but there is no other real advantage. Do not larger wheels roll more efficiently? In other words, don't you get a better flywheel effect? Also, do not larger wheels smooth out the road better? Do not confuse rolling resistance with angular momentum. The angular momentum of a bicycle wheel is minimal. To demonstrate, put a bicycle in a work stand and spin the rear wheel up to the equivalent rotational speed for 30-mph on the road. Squeeze the rear brake lever and notice how the wheel stops almost instantaneously. Now try stopping the bicycle and rider when traveling at 30-mph. Takes quite a bit longer, no? As for ride comfort, use a properly wide tire at reasonable inflation pressure, and the ride is fine. I think the Rocket sold for about $600 less than the V-Rex and that is the only advantage it ever had. RANS made the right decision to phase it out. The better weight distribution of the Rocket makes the handling and braking superior to that of the V-Rex. You do not get ideal weight distribution on any short wheelbase recumbent. Long wheelbase recumbents have the weight distribution issue, with the front wheels too lightly loaded. The longer wheelbase also makes low-speed balance more difficult. Yes, I think you are correct in everything you say, but it does not explain why I prefer a long wheelbase to a short wheelbase. The bottom line is that I do not feel as safe and secure on a short wheelbase as I do on a long wheelbase. Something is obviously being overlooked. Personal preference in handling characteristics, which is not easily quantified. Prof. Bill Patterson has tried, but there is not general agreement on his methods, (much less his preferences). -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|