Mike Vandeman Nominated for the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame

Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level. Here are some examples
of excellent bicycles for the purpose.

My personal favorite: http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket.htm.

Another bicycle with a similar riding position from RANS, but with a
longer wheelbase and larger wheels: http://www.ransbikes.com/V308.htm#.

A European favorite:
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/index_e.html.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level.

BS. Reclining is a good position for relaxing and falling asleep, but
not for being alert, using your body efficiently, or looking around.
The human body is designed to use the legs to raise the body, not push
sideways. I can go much faster and climb much easier in an upright
position, as well as see much farther. And be MUCH more visible to
motorists.

But we both agree that the bent-over "racing" or mountain biking
positions are stupid.

Here are some examples
of excellent bicycles for the purpose.

My personal favorite: http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket.htm.

Another bicycle with a similar riding position from RANS, but with a
longer wheelbase and larger wheels: http://www.ransbikes.com/V308.htm#.

A European favorite:
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/index_e.html.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level.

BS. Reclining is a good position for relaxing and falling asleep, but
not for being alert, using your body efficiently, or looking around.

Nonsense.

The human body is designed to use the legs to raise the body, not push
sideways. I can go much faster and climb much easier in an upright
position, as well as see much farther. And be MUCH more visible to
motorists.

Yet another thing Mikey gets wrong.

But we both agree that the bent-over "racing" or mountain biking
positions are stupid.

I never agreed to any such thing. An upright position that allows for a
lot of weight shifting is necessary to clear rough terrain.

The cycling position Mikey advocates is only best for short to medium
distance rides.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Jul 27, 12:38�pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level.

BS. Reclining is a good position for relaxing and falling asleep, but
not for being alert, using your body efficiently, or looking around.
The human body is designed to use the legs to raise the body, not push
sideways. I can go much faster and climb much easier in an upright
position, as well as see much farther. And be MUCH more visible to
motorists.

Michael J. Vandeman should know since he is a mountain-biker.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level.

BS. Reclining is a good position for relaxing and falling asleep, but
not for being alert, using your body efficiently, or looking around.

Nonsense.

The human body is designed to use the legs to raise the body, not push
sideways. I can go much faster and climb much easier in an upright
position, as well as see much farther. And be MUCH more visible to
motorists.

Yet another thing Mikey gets wrong.

But we both agree that the bent-over "racing" or mountain biking
positions are stupid.

I never agreed to any such thing. An upright position that allows for a
lot of weight shifting is necessary to clear rough terrain.

The cycling position Mikey advocates is only best for short to medium
distance rides.

Mr. Sherman is an expert on the aerodynamics of uprights vs. recumbents, but
he does not know **** about the anatomy and physiology of the human animal.
That is why he is wrong about recumbents being overall faster than uprights.
To intimate that reucmbents might be able to climb as well as uprights if
everything were equal is absurd. It is not even worth discussing.

Regards,

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

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:10 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

The best position for viewing scenery is a moderate recline with the
feet slightly above to slightly below seat level.
BS. Reclining is a good position for relaxing and falling asleep, but
not for being alert, using your body efficiently, or looking around.
Nonsense.

The human body is designed to use the legs to raise the body, not push
sideways. I can go much faster and climb much easier in an upright
position, as well as see much farther. And be MUCH more visible to
motorists.

Yet another thing Mikey gets wrong.

But we both agree that the bent-over "racing" or mountain biking
positions are stupid.

I never agreed to any such thing. An upright position that allows for a
lot of weight shifting is necessary to clear rough terrain.

The cycling position Mikey advocates is only best for short to medium
distance rides.

Mr. Sherman is an expert on the aerodynamics of uprights vs. recumbents, but
he does not know **** about the anatomy and physiology of the human animal.
That is why he is wrong about recumbents being overall faster than uprights.
To intimate that reucmbents might be able to climb as well as uprights if
everything were equal is absurd. It is not even worth discussing.

Analytical ability not your strong point, eh Ed?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Mr. Sherman is an expert on the aerodynamics of uprights vs. recumbents,
but he does not know **** about the anatomy and physiology of the human
animal. That is why he is wrong about recumbents being overall faster
than uprights. To intimate that reucmbents might be able to climb as well
as uprights if everything were equal is absurd. It is not even worth
discussing.

Analytical ability not your strong point, eh Ed?

It is strong enough for the likes of you, but I am lazy.

You blather on and on about recumbents being as fast or, God help us, even
faster than uprights, but why should anyone believe you until we see it
demonstrated in the real world. But forget about professional racers. How
about us amateurs? I do not ever see any evidence of recumbents being able
to keep up with uprights. Recumbents get dropped on hills by uprights all
the time. Who needs analysis when you have got eyes to see with.

Regards,

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

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Mr. Sherman is an expert on the aerodynamics of uprights vs. recumbents,
but he does not know **** about the anatomy and physiology of the human
animal. That is why he is wrong about recumbents being overall faster
than uprights. To intimate that reucmbents might be able to climb as well
as uprights if everything were equal is absurd. It is not even worth
discussing.

Analytical ability not your strong point, eh Ed?

It is strong enough for the likes of you, but I am lazy.

If I made decisions the way Ed writes posts, I would be fighting off
multiple lawsuits right now.

You blather on and on about recumbents being as fast or, God help us, even
faster than uprights, but why should anyone believe you until we see it
demonstrated in the real world. But forget about professional racers. How
about us amateurs? I do not ever see any evidence of recumbents being able
to keep up with uprights. Recumbents get dropped on hills by uprights all
the time. Who needs analysis when you have got eyes to see with.

Ed, you really need to get out more.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Mr. Sherman is an expert on the aerodynamics of uprights vs.
recumbents, but he does not know **** about the anatomy and physiology
of the human animal. That is why he is wrong about recumbents being
overall faster than uprights. To intimate that reucmbents might be able
to climb as well as uprights if everything were equal is absurd. It is
not even worth discussing.

Analytical ability not your strong point, eh Ed?

It is strong enough for the likes of you, but I am lazy.

If I made decisions the way Ed writes posts, I would be fighting off
multiple lawsuits right now.

Damn the lawyers - full speed ahead!

You blather on and on about recumbents being as fast or, God help us,
even faster than uprights, but why should anyone believe you until we see
it demonstrated in the real world. But forget about professional racers.
How about us amateurs? I do not ever see any evidence of recumbents being
able to keep up with uprights. Recumbents get dropped on hills by
uprights all the time. Who needs analysis when you have got eyes to see
with.

Ed, you really need to get out more.

Is it possible that Mr. Sherman fancies himself fast on his low racer? That
I would like to see! Hells Bells, I know he is only average when it comes to
speed and I also know he gets dropped by little old ladies on their uprights
whenever hills are encountered. Let's face it, we all do. But we have spent
thousands of dollars on our recumbents and so we are going to be fast come
hell or high water. And never mind those hills - we will make up for it on
the downside and on the flats. Sure we will!

Regards,

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

On Jul 26, 11:44*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
...
Industry: I have improved the bicycle by advocating turned-back
handlebars and wide, comfortable seats that allow one to sit upright
so as to view the scenery, and avoid wrist and arm injuries due to the
need to put too much weight on the arms, as well as impotence in male
riders. Our arms haven't been for weigh-bearing since we left the
monkey stage!...

Mikey has this wrong - the answer is to get 'bent.

Perhaps OT, but I found the real Michael Vandeman:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...id=326 483461