Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!

On 5/10/06 6:43 PM, in article
, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:

Some more newbie SWB observations:

* Disc brakes are amazing!!! NO FEAR -- I stopped on a dime,
basically. A handful of times I skidded another few inches, probably,
but I haven't felt so astounded since first meeting V-brakes ten years
ago! I have Avid BB7 mechanical disc brakes -- can only wonder what
those Magurar Marta hydraulic ones stop like!!!

* Rear air shocks are great!!! I'm not sure that they're necessarily
better in performance than regular steel spring shocks -- I've only
tried the steel ones once, and just a few minutes over a few speed
bumps and some small potholes -- but they're certainly a hell lot more
easier to adjust!

* Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires are nice! Slow, too, I think -- I "feel
the road," if you know what I mean -- but there's also not been a
stretch of debris, rocks and wood splinters and glass and angular
stones which I've been worried about yet! I actually go through them
rather deliberately just to see if I can get a puncture! So far, I'm
very impressed, and still rather glad to sacrifice the speed in
exchange for peace of mind!

* Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!

* Chains are incredible! By which I mean that I can't believe my chain
CUT THROUGH the metal clamp that was holding the teflon tubing -- which
it had shredded! I don't know how this happened; by the time I
noticed, top chain management was KIA!!! Interestingly, I haven't yet
suffered any visible leg grease...maybe it's the teflon lubrication??
I'm not sure whether (or how, exactly) to replace the top chain
tubing....

* A BITCH to haul!!! There's no obvious place to grab, really, and the
weight distribution makes it totally unwieldy for narrow stairways.
It's a chore just taking the damned thing out for a spin! I wonder if
my back's getting stressed from the contortions I have to make
manuevering it up and down four flights of narrow ("single-breasted")
stairs, thus somewhat under-cutting recumbent-riding's lower back
benefits! I've had to develop a very strict and careful way of
handling the 'bent, akin to observing proper form in weight-lifting!

* A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.


Dude! You ****in jabber TOO much...........

Tuschinski wrote:

To Pete: Compare a Trek 600 city bike against the bents you mention.
Bent vs. uprights is always apples and oranges, but at least compare
racing models or commuter models, dont mix and match.

Though my point was "Buy an M5, they're fast" is giving someone a
mixed crate of apples and opranges and saying "this fruit is
juicier than those pears"! "M5" as a collective brand /is/ mix and
match (as is Optima, Challenge, HP vel, Nazca etc. etc.)

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/

Gary wrote:
I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the first
few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents are
definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to worry
about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that there are
riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there lives and never
had a problem just like there are people that have smoked all of their
lives and never had a problem but, why take the chance?
Gary

Here we go.....riding an upright is like smoking and also causes
cancer......I'm out




Peter Clinch wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
upright's comfort or my age...

While I have several upright bikes that I ride happily in comfort, the
simple fact of the matter is my 'bent is considerably /more/
comfortable. While I do not *need* that level of comfort, it is
certainly something I greatly appreciate when covering any sort of distance.

Given the choice of something quite comfortable or extremely
comfortable, assuming both will otherwise do the jobs I need and I can
afford my preference, I see no reason to put up with 2nd best when it
makes a difference to my overall enjoyment of touring.

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/

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
* Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!

You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on an
upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders actually
do
get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because
they
ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is more
work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.

For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent as
it
was just more enjoyable to ride.
[...]

* A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.

You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known several
guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would
rather
be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you get,
the
more important this becomes.

I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
upright's comfort or my age...

Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
back to me on the comfort issue.

Silly point...how many people ride 40 hrs per week?

I can ride for 4 hours, easily, many timer per week...and it is NOT
uncomfortable..riding any more isn't a comfort issue but cycling
stength issue, I'm just not strong enough to ride 40 hrs per week,
being on a 'bent' wouldn't change that, still gotta pedal the thing.

But if like yer bent, groovey, I would rather walk than ride one. I
broke my back 4 years ago-L1, L3, C-5, after getting hit by a pickup
from behind, while riding...and my quack mentioned it might be a 'bent
only for me...I said then, I'll walk, thanks...but I can ride my
upright w/o any problem or issues...

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Qui si Parla,

I'm talking about a Racer, with a horizontal back position (in the
drops). There are very very few people in the peloton who comfortably
ride like that for longer periods with no problems. With a low-rider
bent the position is always aerodynamically good.

I do not like bents, but I do comment that a bent should be faster on
the flats and that the shown list proves that(while the insinuation was
that it wasn't shown). I add to that that the "in the drops" position
isn't used as much as the on the hoods. Sure, there are limber riders
who can keep that position for hours, but that's rare.

For the record, I am racing courses on a decent level, so I am more an
upright racer than anything else

Peter,

Agreed, I was simplifying there, but I remain to say that a similar
purpose bent(so race vs. race) should be a tad faster. And yeah, a bent
ain't the second coming Everyone their own preference! And mine is...
upright racer all the way. But that wasn't the point of the
discusion/question, wich was surprise that a bent was slower than an
upright on the flats.

Edward Dolan wrote:

[snip]

Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
back to me on the comfort issue.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Dear Ed,

The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
day for 30 years.
He seems fairly comfortable with it.

"For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...38df6e59563c92

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

That reminds me...I've always wondered whether athletes tend to wear
themselves out more...I'm definitely athletic compared to the average
American (and *look* like an Olympian -- but had a fat sailor beat me
in a sprint once, fair and square), but maybe it really is old age and
wear and tear that's got me preferring the comfort of my 'bent over the
speed and agility of my upright.

Your unbound enthusiasms indicate to me that you are not yet old. You will
know that you are old when, like me, you no longer give a damn about
anything. Details are no longer interesting and your mind only lingers on
the great generalities - like life and death. You become as one finally with
the poet.

"I grow old . I grow old .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown."

T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



Edward Dolan wrote:


It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may
never
need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
athletes.
Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
recumbent.

Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
than
uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Newsgroups restored.

Edward Dolan wrote:


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

NYC XYZ wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get
a 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because
of
my upright's comfort or my age...



My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.

700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
a 'bent ride.

It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may
never
need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
athletes. Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit
from a recumbent.

Damn,
I finally am provoked enough to answer a 'Dolan' post.
I am 57 and would not consider a bent for anything. MTB and rough roads
and
exploring are where it's at for me, not playing sissy and old. Not even
when I hit 70+ do I plan on acting over 50, not like the 'great' Ed
suggests.

Recumbents do not work at all well on rough roads. They are for paved
surfaces only.

Bill, you are still a young whippersnapper, but trust me on this, each and
every year takes its' toll. By the time you are 70 you will find that your
get up and go has got up and gone. Welcome to the world of the old and the
dying.

When I was in my 50's I thought those kind of years would go on forever too,
but they don't. Enjoy them while you can. The Grim Reaper is right around
the corner waiting for you and for me.

He missed the whole point of having fun on a bike. I still take my grand
kids out and since one is just turning 5 I will have ten years more to
take
him out, then there will be great grand kids to take riding, and I don't
plan on letting them down either.

Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
than uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.

DUH?
Ed seems to have an 'old' mentality.

The advantage of a recumbent is that you will ride it longer into your old
age than you ever will an upright. Old Bill Baka will one of these days get
himself a recumbent. Nothing is more certain than that provided he wants to
continue cycling into his 70's.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Jasper Janssen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:15:08 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer. Women also need to
very wary around the conventional bike saddle. Our nether parts are really
designed for seats, not saddles.

Funny how I never hear about those old-time knights (lit: Horseman)
fathering no *******s at all on all those commoners they slept with.

There can be no doubt at all that the conventional bike saddle causes all
kinds of problems in the groin area.

Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.

The Chinese and the Dutch do not ride their bikes for sport. They ride them
for utility purposes. It is the sport rider who is most at risk of
developing groin problems from a bike saddle.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Tim Lines" wrote in message
. ..
Edward Dolan wrote:

By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer.

It's about as accurate as the claim that riding a recumbent causes your
brain to fall out. The evidence to support either supposition is about as
strong.

There is tons of anecdotal evidence. Ever had a numb penis from riding your
bike? Maybe Lance Armstrong got his testicular cancer from all his cycling.
The fact is that the groin area has many nerves concentrated there. How is
the pressure from a bike saddle good for that? Try to get some common sense,
why don't you?

The casual occasional rider has nothing to worry about, but if you ride your
bike many hours a day year around, who knows?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota