What is it about the mileage?

wrote:
Papa Tom wrote:

Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If all we
wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, we
would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead of a car likely
prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!

There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail you
see is inversely proportional to the sophistication (and hence, speed) of
your means of transportation. You'll see more driving than you would
flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more interested in
rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best option is to walk.
Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of the
best compromises between covering ground and still seeing something.[...]

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Papa Tom wrote:

Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If
all we wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as
possible, we would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead of
a car likely prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!
There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail
you see is inversely proportional to the sophistication (and hence,
speed) of your means of transportation. You'll see more driving than you
would flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more
interested in rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best
option is to walk.
Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of the
best compromises between covering ground and still seeing something.[...]

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and durable
tires.

Colin Fletcher was always a good read. I once wanted to hike through the
Grand Canyon like he did. But he is built like a horse and I am not, so I
had to give up on that idea.

But Fetcher is quite right. There is no better way to see things than to
walk - and walk slowly. A bicycle is way too fast to ever see much unless
you stop every now and then and look around you.

Regards,

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

Tom Sherman wrote:

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.


I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
particular the $1700 X-3 AX:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/index...d=388&blogId=1

However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
others that uses the same frame.

....Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean
your upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas
seem to be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built
with relatively low seating.
.....
So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as
on most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning
hard the inside rear wheel tends to lift....

--------

The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:

http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html

Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see
much talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very
agile, it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than
any other trike around I think.

Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a
chain under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the
tadpole trikes do it....
~

"DougC" wrote in message
...
Tom Sherman wrote:

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and durable
tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.


I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
particular the $1700 X-3 AX:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/index...d=388&blogId=1

However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
others that uses the same frame.

...Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean your
upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas seem to
be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built with
relatively low seating.

So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as on
most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning hard
the inside rear wheel tends to lift....

The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:

http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html

Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see much
talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very agile,
it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than any other
trike around I think.

Forget about speed on any kind of trike. Also, you need to turn cautiously
and slowly on any kind of trike.

Tadpoles do not need to be as low to the ground as they are. Deltas have got
it right. If you want a go-cart, get a tadpole; if you want a bicycle, get a
delta.

The Sun delta should be fine, but it is heavier than it needs to be and also
more expensive than it needs to be. But ALL recumbents are overpriced,
something I have been bitching about for the past 25 years.

Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a chain
under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the tadpole
trikes do it....

The Kett-Wiesel from Germany is a low to the ground delta, but it is damn
expensive. It rides nice, looks sharp and is lightweight besides. But it is
damn expensive!

Regards,

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

Doug Cimper wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.


I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
particular the $1700 X-3 AX:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/index...d=388&blogId=1


However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
others that uses the same frame.

...Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean
your upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas
seem to be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built
with relatively low seating.
....
So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as
on most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning
hard the inside rear wheel tends to lift....

--------

The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:

http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html

Add the Anthrotech to the list of high seat tadpoles:
http://www.anthrotech.de/Pages-e/index-e.html.

Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see
much talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very
agile, it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than
any other trike around I think.

Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a
chain under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the
tadpole trikes do it....
~
The "Chain Weasel" has a relatively low seat:
http://www.hase-bikes.com/ens/kettwieselal/index.php.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful