"Liquid Drive" bike prototype at auction

(John Foltz) wrote in message om...
(Carl Fogel) wrote in message . com...

You know how to pander to my chain fantasies.
It's so much easier to ask than to think. I'd
never thought about how a longer chain should
last longer and cross-chain with less angle
between the front and rear sprockets.

Your two pictures delight me, though perhaps
not in the way that you intended. I feel like
someone who's never seen anything but labradors
stumbling over his first basset hound. Those
(no offense intended) are some weird-looking
bikes.

The recumbents that I see in my little backwater
in Pueblo, Colorado, must be the equivalent of
the inexpensive mountain bikes sold at WalMart.
The riders sit higher, their feet are lower, the
wheels are larger, and the chain runs seem much
more straightforward than that Rube Goldberg
contraption in your second--I mean your beloved
current bike, the one in your second picture.

If you'll pardon a somewhat personal question,
do the chains on the more complicated bike give
any trouble in terms of staying on? That is, do
you need some recumbent-specific chain-watchers
to tame the unruly beasts beyond the guide-wheels?

Thanks for a marvelous answer,

Carl, I'll entertain you with a few more pics.

http://www.biketcba.org/TRICORR/vrex2.jpg
http://www.biketcba.org/TRICORR/mgruizenga.jpg

The first one is of my slightly customized V-Rex. It has a pretty
straight chainline, with only one power side idler to prevent too much
chain slap. It's never come off, although it once jumped the return
idler by the fork. It has an ISO 507 (24") rear wheel and an ISO 451
(20") front wheel. This model is considered a 'sport' model, and it's
the equivalent to a mid-level road bike. Both of Tom's bikes would be
considered 'faster' bikes. The 30/44/56 chainrings shift a little
balkily, but as Tom wrote, larger rings do that; and it spends most of
its time in the big ring anyway. OBTW it takes about two and a half
chains , which seem to last about 10,000 miles.

By far the most common recumbent model in my club is the TourEasy. The
second pic is of one of the club members on his aluminum-framed model.
These bikes have the rider sitting more upright, but they are made to
be used in conjunction with the fairing you see. Keeping the rider
relatively close to the fairing helps aerodynamics, so the bike you
see is not slow. In fact, the speed demons of the club put body socks
on the bikes, in effect making lycra-bodied streamliners. They ride
with the 'A' riders in a swarm, like jet fighters protecting a bomber
squadron. The smell-the-roses riders like this model too, because the
low pedals make it easy to ride; so if you see one going slow,
consider the engine. TourEasys have no power side idlers, so chain
deflection, even in the extreme gears, is almost unnoticeable.

To relate back to the original subject, I for one would rather
continue to deal with chain routing than to lose efficiency or gain
too much extra weight with a hydraulic drive system.

Dear John,

Nice pictures.

Like your bike, mine spends most of its time on the
big ring, so much that I'm still using old-fashioned
friction shifters, fore-and-aft.

As for speed, all joking aside, the few recumbents
that I see are piloted by people out for a pleasant
stroll, so to speak, on the most basic of entry-level
machines, which I'm sure accounts for the wobbling and
low speed (I've seen runners pass them). I expect that
any serious recumbent rider would pass me with barely
time for a friendly wave. As Ted Bennett points out
elsewhere in this thread, the Human Powered Vehicle
high-speed crowd at Battle Mountain is exclusively
recumbent and none of their annual reports that I've
read ever mention wobble as a problem.

Speaking of the body-sock streamlining, I see that
your second bike has the clear plastic snoot often
grown by more advanced specimens of these enchanting
creatures.

Am I correct in thinking that this nose-cone not only
provides combined streamlining and visibility, but
also keeps the wind and rain from blowing up your
pants? I've read of rain being a problem for touring
recumbents, but have seen nothing in the current
thread about rain gear about it. Last year, only
two inches of water fell from the skies here in
Pueblo, Colorado, so my interest is largely
theoretical.

Carl Fogel

In article
,
Ted Bennett wrote:

They usually travel in pairs along the river
trail, possibly feeding on berries or hiding
from predators. Their plumage is somewhat drab,
but in the evening I've seen a few around my
neighborhood with blinking red lights in back.

Their flight may be described as somewhat slow
and wobbly, but cheerful, much like my basset
hound. Possibly these are immature specimens
and improve with age?

Carl Fogel



Some exceedingly rare specimens have evolved to optimize speed, to the
extent that their speed far exceeds that of the common diamond frame
bicycle. They are delicate and nervous creatures, and require
specialized care and feeding, but some have been reliably clocked at
well over 80 miles per hour.

No, that's not a typo. That's over 80 mph, level ground, pedal power,
no energy storage device, and no tailwind. See:
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisi...02/results.htm

Well, more like "two have been reliably clocked at over 80 mph", one
being the Varna Diablo II, at 81.00 mph, and the other being the Varna
Diablo I, at 80.55 mph.

http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarec7.html#nom01

130 km/h over a 200m course is nothing to sneeze at, but to give you an
idea of how much better than the others George Georgiev's Varna machines
are, the last time someone set a flying 200m record (which, for all
practical purposes, is the HPV land speed record trial) in something
other than a Varna was in 1992, and the speed was 68.72 mph.

Bents are wonderful machines, with some very interesting attributes,
including huge top speeds. But even a non-lowracer bent tends to involve
a lot of compromises over the safety bicycle design.

The saddest part is a lot of the non-lowracer bent designs don't even
have an aerodynamic advantage over conventional bikes, leaving them only
with the advantage of a different seating position to compensate for
being heavier, more ponderous, and less agile.

I like the idea of recumbents, and would love to own a really
aerodynamic, fairly lightweight one. But the price and the compromises
make my collection of cheap wedgie bikes look pretty good.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Carl Fogel wrote:
...
As for speed, all joking aside, the few recumbents
that I see are piloted by people out for a pleasant
stroll, so to speak, on the most basic of entry-level
machines, which I'm sure accounts for the wobbling and
low speed (I've seen runners pass them). I expect that
any serious recumbent rider would pass me with barely
time for a friendly wave. As Ted Bennett points out
elsewhere in this thread, the Human Powered Vehicle
high-speed crowd at Battle Mountain is exclusively
recumbent and none of their annual reports that I've
read ever mention wobble as a problem.

Here are the results [1] from a race near where I live. Mr. Ariail was
the winner of the 6-hour event on a Challenge Jester [2], and is the
only person in the history of the event to complete 7 19-mile laps
within the allotted 6-hours. This was accomplished without drafting. I
do not believe that Mr. Ariail had problems with excessive wobbling
during the race.

Speaking of the body-sock streamlining, I see that
your second bike has the clear plastic snoot often
grown by more advanced specimens of these enchanting
creatures.

Am I correct in thinking that this nose-cone not only
provides combined streamlining and visibility, but
also keeps the wind and rain from blowing up your
pants? I've read of rain being a problem for touring
recumbents, but have seen nothing in the current
thread about rain gear about it. Last year, only
two inches of water fell from the skies here in
Pueblo, Colorado, so my interest is largely
theoretical.

On a club ride of a couple of years past, we encountered a typical
Midwestern thunderstorm. I was the only rider that had dry feet at the
end of the ride. I believe that the bicycle that I was riding was
responsible for my relative state of dryness. [3]

[1] http://www.ultracycling.com/results/iowa2002.html
[2]
http://www.challenge-ligfietsen.nl/ch-01/pages/ch-fold-modl/ch-jester-en.html
[3] http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Tom Sherman wrote:

It would be helpful if the number of conventional road bikes in
the club was stated.

Bikes or riders? I ask because for most tandem couples, they each
also have their own 'half bikes.' There are about 800 active riders
in the club. It's not uncommon to have 4 or 5 tandems on a weekend
ride. And in August, when everybody's gearing up for DALMAC, we can
get a dozen of them at the start, with 4 or 5 in the lead group
alone. On a tour a few years back which was 95% club members, 11%
were tandems and another 11% were recumbents.
--

John Foltz --- O _
Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

Vincent Wilcox wrote:

I went for a ride with a local cycling group on a local loop with a
varied route, ie. getting off the road at points. We kept having to wait
for the groups recumbent rider to catch up as he rode the longer road
route because it was impossible for him to lift his bike over fences
and ride on some bumpy offroad track. I imagine he only did it to
increase his mileage.

It sounds like your ride was almost a cyclocross event in places.
Definitely not a good venue for a bike that is essentially meant for
roads only. There is very little public land around here for doing
that stuff, so rather than trespass we stick to the pavement.
--

John Foltz --- O _
Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

Carl Fogel wrote:

Speaking of the body-sock streamlining, I see that your second
bike has the clear plastic snoot often grown by more advanced
specimens of these enchanting creatures.

To be accurate, that is not me nor is it my bike. The Super ZZipper
(tm) fairing on it is so common, it's rare to see one without a
fairing. I have a homemade fairing for my V-Rex (the first picture)
that does a very good job at preventing sunburn on my legs, as well
as provides a significant speed boost on the order of 7-10% at 20
mph. Lessee, here's the project page where I built it, some good
pics of it at the bottom:
http://www.biketcba.org/TRICORR/proj.../fairing4.html

Am I correct in thinking that this nose-cone not only provides
combined streamlining and visibility, but also keeps the wind and
rain from blowing up your pants? I've read of rain being a
problem for touring recumbents, but have seen nothing in the
current thread about rain gear about it. Last year, only two
inches of water fell from the skies here in Pueblo, Colorado, so
my interest is largely theoretical.

Yes, they protect against wind and rain somewhat. More specifically,
they keep the rain off your chest and put it in your face instead.
This isn't the problem you might think; as long as you have riding
glasses the water just flies off after hitting you. But it's not
perfect. Eventually the rider gets wet no matter what. Fairings are
also good for keeping stinging insects away from the rider. And in
more northerly areas, they help fend off the cold.

Disadvantages of a fairing like mine or the one in the second pic:
they add 3-4 pounds to the bike, and they have to be removed for
transport. Mine is designed to come off in less than 30 seconds. The
clear ones come off by removing 4 nylon wingnuts. While I love
riding with it, I haven't used it at all this year. Sometimes the
feeling of riding a lighter bike is good, too.
--

John Foltz --- O _
Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

Ryan Cousineau wrote:


Well, more like "two have been reliably clocked at over 80 mph", one
being the Varna Diablo II, at 81.00 mph, and the other being the Varna
Diablo I, at 80.55 mph.

http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarec7.html#nom01

130 km/h over a 200m course is nothing to sneeze at, but to give you an
idea of how much better than the others George Georgiev's Varna machines
are, the last time someone set a flying 200m record (which, for all
practical purposes, is the HPV land speed record trial) in something
other than a Varna was in 1992, and the speed was 68.72 mph.

Bents are wonderful machines, with some very interesting attributes,
including huge top speeds. But even a non-lowracer bent tends to involve
a lot of compromises over the safety bicycle design.

The saddest part is a lot of the non-lowracer bent designs don't even
have an aerodynamic advantage over conventional bikes, leaving them only
with the advantage of a different seating position to compensate for
being heavier, more ponderous, and less agile.

I like the idea of recumbents, and would love to own a really
aerodynamic, fairly lightweight one. But the price and the compromises
make my collection of cheap wedgie bikes look pretty good.

Most of what you write above is true, IMHO. Most, but not all,
recumbent riders get into recumbents because they have a comfort
issue with safety bicycles. The recumbent design works for 90+% of
them. Most US recumbents are, at best, the equivalent of riding an
upright on the hoods. Bike-E in particular, liked to quote recumbent
speed advantages, glossing over the fact that their design was
actually *worse* than a typical road bike. BTW, I don't consider
recumbent designs "compromises," but rather they are optimized for
the kind of riding I do. YMMV.

For the majority of riders who don't have a significant comfort
issue with their bikes, there is no compelling reason to get a
recumbent. Unless of course they just want one. :-)

--

John Foltz --- O _
Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Richard wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
I occasionally see recumbents wobbling along on
my local bicycle path, but have never inspected
a dead one's anatomy--possibly there is a secret
recumbent graveyard.

I certainly did not write the above text. Please be more careful with
your attributions when quoting.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

My apologies, Tom. I lost track of which post I snipped out a part to respond to.
Richard

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

[snip all relevant matter]

[3] http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Dear Tom,

How do you scratch your nose in that
impressive body-sock?

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

[snip all relevant matter]

[3] http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Dear Tom,

How do you scratch your nose in that
impressive body-sock?

There are zippered armholes in each side for hand signaling and there is
also a zipper along the top of the sock.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth