|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The most confortable saddle!
I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the
thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area, pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will ride much more if your conformable. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The most confortable saddle!
Ken Bradley wrote: I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area, pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will ride much more if your conformable. I'm glad you found comfort through your recumbent and are riding it a lot. I'm comfortable on my Lemond with my Brooks saddle and Rivendell Noodle drop bars. That's the way it should be; no matter what you ride, you should be comfortable. And as Eddy Merckx said "ride lots". Smokey |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The most confortable saddle!
A drunken college professor mistakenly wrote: I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Too much force on a small area, pressure, if I remember my physics. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and you can see the scenery without strain. Then go out and ride the damn thing instead of propagandizing like your bearded hippie lot are want to do. Bring some tempeh snacks for the hills. Don't forget your orange geek flag! Great view of traffic too. Yeah, it's fascinating under a Kenworth tire! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The most confortable saddle!
Ken Bradley wrote: I tried for 30 years to find a really conformable saddle. I don't think the thing exist, for a normal upright bike. Sounds like what didn't exist for you is a proper fitiing bicycle. Too much force on a small area, pressure, if I remember my physics Physics has nothing to do with it, Ergonomics and yer butt size does, along with bike fit. .. My solution, about 5 years ago, is a recumbent. I know they are expensive, but no more pain in ass or neck, and you can see the scenery without strain. Great view of traffic too. You will ride much more if your conformable. Unique, sometimes hard to find parts, heavy, complicated, hard to see from(behind) and be seen on..if it works for you, fine, but it really answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well fitted upright. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The most confortable saddle!
Is a recumbent saddle, er, seat.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
the question it answered (was The most confortable saddle!)
qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
...if it works for you, fine, but it really answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well fitted upright. How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or solve a problem? For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better, losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?". The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact. If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much? Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding recumbent, which I also enjoy. There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in my area. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing. Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish I had the DF under me. -- I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
the question it answered (was The most confortable saddle!)
One other huge advantage of riding recumbent is the wide open chest position
(does not apply to "hamster style" bars). The overall view is far superior to upright, just not directly ahead of the bike. I love, er loved my upright bikes, until I got my Trike. I ride further, faster, with less fatigue than ever before. And, no more numb hands, achy neck, sore butt, etc. The biggest disadvantage... Not being able to "unweight" on the rough stuff. I really do still love my uprights, I just hardly ever ride them anymore. Grolsch "Victor Kan" wrote in message . .. qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: ...if it works for you, fine, but it really answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well fitted upright. How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or solve a problem? For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better, losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?". The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact. If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much? Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding recumbent, which I also enjoy. There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in my area. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing. Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish I had the DF under me. -- I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
the question it answered (was The most confortable saddle!)
Victor Kan wrote: qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: ...if it works for you, fine, but it really answers no questions or solves no problems with respect to a well fitted upright. How many times does a recumbent bike rider have to counter this "answers no questions or solves no problem" response of yours with the question answered for them before you'll believe it does answer a question or solve a problem? For me, the question was "how can I go faster overall for longer distances with less effort on the routes I ride without training better, losing 40 lbs, joining a paceline, etc.?". Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts, that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity, weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so, as long as uprights, fit well, exist. The answer is I bought a "high racer" recumbent. I have a well fitted upright bike. I like riding it. So far in 2006, I rode more miles on it than my recumbent. About twice as many miles in fact. If my recumbent is so great (on rolling hills routes where I average ~18mph on the upright, I average ~19.5mph on the recumbent with a lower average heart rate), why did I ride my upright bike twice as much? Because improving my speed on the upright bike is a challenge and I enjoy challenges. It's more of a workout. I also enjoy the upright bike riding position--it's a different cycling experience than riding recumbent, which I also enjoy. There are a few other reasons too, like the upright having better handling (and bunny hopping potential) and right-in-front-of-the-bike visibility that I felt I needed due to the road construction going on in my area. DOES add many issues not cfound on uprights, like climbing. Even though my recumbent is heavier than my upright, I'm faster overall on the former on my hilly routes, though in some steeper sections I wish I had the DF under me. -- I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
the question it answered (was The most confortable saddle!)
On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts, that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity, weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so, as long as uprights, fit well, exist. If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively, in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
the question it answered (was The most confortable saddle!)
Michael Warner wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 06:18:02 -0700, qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: Groovy but I object to the notion, so often put forth by 'bent addicts, that uprights are uncomfortable, evil things and 'bents will solve all the problems of cycling. I also don't like it when 'bent people think that their rigs offer no tradeoffs with regard to vision, complexity, weight and cost. If 'bents were the salvation to the problems of upright bicycles, we would see them everywhere, sold everywhere, and that is not the case. They are a sliver of bicycles and will remain so, as long as uprights, fit well, exist. So maybe the better statement is that "bents don't answer all questions, and don't solve all problems". Only the hopelessly kool aid drunk would disagree. If someone was interested only in riding as efficiently as possible alone on quiet, smooth roads, and money was no object, I'd encourage them to look at recumbents. But as soon as you want to ride with groups, competitively, in heavy traffic or on less-than-perfect roads, they're not so great. I ride in heavy traffic (albeit not big city urban traffic with homicidal cab drivers) all the time and don't have problems that are recumbent induced. Granted, the roads in my area are pretty good for the most part. I have no interest in riding with groups, whether on a DF or a recumbent, competitively or recreationally. But for those who do, riding with groups of DFs can be a problem when done incorrectly (it seems 'bents are OK if they either stay in the back or stay in the front rather than rotating through with everybody else), but groups of 'bents can surely work. -- I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
noseless saddle | ellis | Techniques | 22 | January 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Good saddle no more | Ben A Gozar | General | 2 | April 15th 05 02:55 PM |
Opinions please - saddle lifespan | psycholist | Techniques | 23 | January 23rd 05 02:52 PM |
Possible Saddle Adjustment Needed? | Tom Young | Techniques | 2 | April 8th 04 05:41 AM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |