Bent out of shape
Wed, October 14, 2009 
I guess I set myself up for a fall.
At the end of my three part series on “The Evolution of Frame Design,” I suggested I was “Thinking outside the box.”
A little self serving I suppose; certainly less than humble, but I had just spent over a week writing the three articles.
It had caused me to dig deep into my memory bank and reflect on what I had achieved over the years building bicycle frames.
I was feeling pretty damn good about myself; about my career, and about the series of articles I had just written.
In my pumped up feeling of self importance, I came up with what I thought was a good finishing line, when I included the “Outside the box” idea.
I should have known better. There is always someone who will piss on your corn flakes.
The only comment the final article gathered as of midnight on Tuesday, two days after it posted, was a comment that suggested I was not even close to thinking outside any box.
Why? Because I didn’t even consider….. wait for it…..Recumbents.
WTF Mr. Bent Rider or whatever you signed your name as. I can’t remember now, because after giving the matter much thought and with no further comments appearing, I deleted it as being totally irrelevant.
Because as well being able to toot my own horn on my own blog, I can also delete comments. Something I rarely do by the way, unless it is something rude and obnoxious.
Not that this particular person was rude and obnoxious, because he wasn’t. But he was being a smart ass, and a smart ass who rides a recumbent is the worst kind.
Did you not read the articles? It was about road racing bicycles. It didn’t include BMX bikes, mountain bikes, and it sure as hell didn’t include recumbent bikes.
I spoke about sprinting and climbing out of the saddle, something you can’t do on a recumbent. Probably that design’s biggest drawback, because riding out of the saddle is the conventional bicycle’s form of overdrive.
The other drawbacks are the legs are pedaling in a slightly elevated position meaning that the heart has to work harder to pump blood to the muscles.
On a recumbent bike the drive is at the furthest possible point from the rear wheel, whereas on a conventional bike the drive is at the closest possible point to the rear wheel. These aspects alone tell me the idea is not worth pursuing further.
There are recumbent websites and forums where you can dicuss ideas with other like minded people; this is not the place.
Please take your phsychoceramic ideas elsewhere.
Rant
Reader Comments (21)
Nice rant, Dave :) I didn't comment on your articles because I had nothing witty to add. I have great respect for people who can create something from scratch. My grandfather was that kind of guy. I think you and he would've had a lot to talk about.
Dave,
I'm sorry that somebody pissed on your cornflakes. I enjoyed reading the three articles and wanted to make some comments, but as I was approaching the articles from the viewpoint of a mere bicycle rider and they had been written by an expert framebuilder, I wasn't going to rush in and open my big mouth and look like a fool - I wanted to re-read the three posts and think about them, then rush in and look like a fool!
The history is fascinating and it's always much more interesting to hear the history from people who know what they're talking about. But not only is it interesting, it's important to understand why bicycle frames are the way they currently are - that way if some slick manufacturer tries to sell us some "innovation" that's already been tried we will know what disadvantages come with it.
After re-reading them, I now understand why although I learnt to ride no hands as a child, I now have some bicycles that I wouldn't dare try and ride no hands, but on others I can happily do it. Needless to say, the one that I use everyday for commuting is easy to ride no hands.
I have very short wheelbase frame and whilst it's a beautifully made frame (753, attractive lugs), because it's a 25.5" frame, having a farm gate with a tiny steep rear triangle just looks ugly.
Talking of ugly looking frames, as I ride large frames I always think that compact frames look ugly. I've seen them sold on the premise of being ultra stiff when really the whole point is to keep manufacturing costs down - make frames in three sizes instead of every half inch from 19-25.5.
One final thing which returns to the original subject, then I'll shut up. After learning to ride a bicycle as a young child, I never really thought about how you steer a bicycle - I just did it. But a few years ago I bought an upright trike (because the frame building was so beautiful) and in order to learn to ride that properly, I've had to really become aware of how complicated steering a bicycle is, depending on speed (mainly) to turn right you either have to turn the bars right or left. No wonder it's so difficult for children to learn how to do it!
Thank you again for taking the trouble to write those three articles, actually thank you for all the articles you've written, now you've returned to blogging it gives me (and no doubt many others) an opportunity to increase our knowledge in an enjoyable way.
Bent riders are like the Prius drivers of the bicycle world. Too smug for their own good. (Of course, now I'll find out you drive a Prius)
Comment removed per email request from poster. Youngbentrider
Dave
Oh joy, the recumbent evangelist makes his return as the boorish professor monopolizing the conversation at the cocktail party.
Dave, I have been thinking about your articles on frame design quite a bit, particularly about fork rake and top tube length. I'm trying to replace a mid-80's steel Bianchi- it rides beautifully, but unfortunately suffers from a slightly too-tall head tube and short top tube, and more importantly, I can easily twist the superlight frame to rub the chain with almost any modern, narrow-chain and narrow-FD drivetrain- a shame, because this is the frame I learned to race on and would like to keep doing it. Even with short chainstays, a 74 deg head tube and about 44 mm of fork frake, it still handles beautifully and predictably. Finding something that works in a newer, stiffer frame has been a challenge.
On the other end of the spectrum, a friend recently sold me a Raleigh Sports to use as an errand bike (rear rack and extra-large baskets included) and the wheelbarrow effect is front-and-center. Feeling comfortable with my steering, I took my hands off the bars to fiddle with something and nearly found myself picking romaine hearts and a six-pack off the sidewalk.
Did you ever spend much time looking at axle-to-crown length on fork designs? One thing I noticed with the explosion of the the after-market fork offerings is that length is not particularly consistent, and with head tube angles and fork rakes fairly consistent at 73º and 43-45mm, this has become a major variable.
We call them "redundants." Both the bikes and the riders.
Actually, Dave, I'm pretty upset you didn't include tricycles or unicycles. I thought I was the only left wing, vegetarian, monotheistic, caucasion. nude sunbathing, half caff no mocha drinking, tricyclist who was bent on my niche not being mentioned, but obviously I was not. For shame.
I ride a variety of bikes including two and three wheeled recumbents, road, touring and mountain bikes. I enjoy Dave's writing both history and philosophy. I don't always agree with him but so what. I enjoy his words.
When I'm on the road riding my Paramount I get remarks about riding an old bike. One day while exercising my touring bike with it's fenders and racks a couple of racer wannabes dressed as billboards asked me if I was expecting rain. I wondered if they were expecting a race. When I'm on my trike mothers tell their kids not to stare at that handicapped man and roadies tell me I should get a real bike. When riding my very low carbon recumbent TT bike I get the same "Get a real bike" gaff until I start getting complaints about not having enough draft. There is an old lady who rides a delta trike very slowly on Coast Hwy here in north San Diego. I make a point of saying hi to her when I pass. I hope I'm still riding when I get to her age. I bet she does a couple of hundred miles a week at about 6 mph. I have many times heard roadies telling her to get that piece of s*** off the road. There are insecure jerks riding all kinds of bikes who need to bolster their own ego by dissing anything that is different from their choice. The result is that it divides us as a community of riders.
Ride what ever you like but don't tell me that there is something wrong with the style of bike I happen to be riding. Dave happens to be a historian of a particular type of bike with a particular point of view. Keep up the great work Dave, this 'bent rider looks forward to your next blog entry.
-Rob
23-years-old and riding a recumbent? I don't know if I've read a sadder sentence in my life.
Great stuff Dave. All three articles.
Here's an interesting on-line calculation tool: kogwell.com
You enter headtube angle and rake variables to see resulting trail and wheel flop numbers.
What become evident is that 700c road wheels (approximately 680mm in tire diameter) are well suited to 53-59cm-ish frames. Though impractical, smaller and larger riders should have smaller and larger wheels. Take the smaller rider. It is traditional to slacken the HT angle and use more rake to achieve a desirable trail outcome, but doing so increases wheel flop and screws up weight distribution. Bill Boston came up with the ideal of using a 24" front wheel to get around this issue (popularized by Terry). It was a good one.
Anyway, much subtly and nuance involved in geometry discussions. In three short articles, your posts here covered the topic solidly.
It's a little like religion in any given culture. We may want to think we are thinking outside the box, like the atheist thinks he is outside the religion, but we also need that box to be there in order to have an "outside of it" to be in. I'm reminded of an interesting book published in the mid-1980's: Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse.
I like your blog, but I don't read or participate in any cycling-related forums or email groups anymore. It's not worth the frustration. I've had access to the internet since 1996, and frankly, as far as cycling goes, I've heard nothing new on cycling forums, groups or newsgroups that wasn't already mentioned in 1996. That includes recumbents, because I well remember the same kind of talk way back in the 1960's and 70's.
I believe that Jef Mallett best illustrated the recumb-zealot philosophy with this brilliant cartoon
http://www.cruzbike.com/content/new-record-pending-certfication
I ride a recumbent. Yes, I know that there are many that continue to debate the pros and cons of owning one. I can tell you from experience that moving to a recumbent was the right move for me. I can do just as well as my roadie buddies and even better in strong head winds when they all take turns sucking wheel. I am not bashing road bikes. I think the ability to get off the seat and into another position is a great benefit when climbing hills and just to stretch.
Don't condemn them, though, just for the sake of it without proof. My heart doesn't work any harder that I know of. Is there medical proof of this? Documents are nice as proof. I am young at 35 and can still do very well, and believe that if a younger, stronger crowd was allowed to ride these bikes against the mainstream, more would take the plunge into the world of recumbent and there would be less animosity. The woman in the link just broke the world record 12 hr. She rode a recumbent.
It's one thing to say that bents have a place and should be respected, it's another to constantly rail on their superiority to diamond frames. Surely bent advocates can promote bents without insisting that they are better than diamond frames.
Strictly speaking from a practical urban cycling point of view, bents don't make much sense. This won't change until I can find a used bent for $500 that I can maintain cheaply and put on the bus or train with ease. That's all trivial with a diamond frame bike, not so much with a bent.
Dave, though I enjoy pretty much all of your posts, and certainly the series on frame design, I won't comment unless I can think of something worthwhile to say (a rare occurrence). Otherwise I just end up contributing nothing, like this...
Rule 1 of writing a blog, Dave, is dealing with criticism. Looks like you might want to work on that a little bit.
Dave's response,
I want to thank everyone who commented, here are a few responses to some of them.
ToddBS made me laugh when he compared Bent riders to Prius owners. Prius is only two letters away from “Prick,” and Bent is only two letters away from a very rude word also.
Andrew asked about Axel to Crown length of front forks. Mine was always 36cm. (14 1/8 inches) Axel center to the top of the crown. The problem is, if forks vary greatly in length from the fork designed for the frame, it will make the head angle steeper or shallower.
Spokejunky made me laugh when he said he was upset that I didn’t include Tricycles or unicycles. Incidentally tricycles usually have no trail because they can’t lean into a corner and have to be steered. The point of contact of the front wheel needs to be exactly on the steering axis. Unicycles are the ultimate in short wheelbase cycles.
Rob (Redtaildd) Talked about bike snobbery and suggested we ride what we like but don’t judge others by what they ride.
Pierre, suggests it a little like religion.
Lastly Thucyclicdes tells me I need to work on handling criticism a little better. Actually these rants are the way I handle it. Better to get this shit out by writing about it than keeping it bottled up inside. This post actually got over 2200 reads yesterday,(Oct. 14. 09.) the most since I started updating again here.
It was also discussed on one of the recumbent forums. One person commented there, that to go on a conventional bike blog and criticize because they don’t write about the recumbent, is like going on a dog lovers blog and complaining they don’t write about cats. Very good analogy.
Thanks again for all your support,
Dave
As usual, I'm late coming into this. I value your perspective, Dave, and I'm glad you're writing all this so we'll have that viewpoint.
When I first started writing for public consumption, an editor warned me that I'd have to develop a thick skin. Some people twist what we say, or take wild tangents. It's frustrating and annoying to deal with them.
Just lately, I've attracted the attention of an anti-helmet zealot. I tried to engage him in a dialog, but he has another agenda. I've decided to let him have the last word, thereby 'winning' the argument.
I'm holding off until someone releases an off-road recumbent - something I can downhill race on and hit the freeride stunts with.....
I see a fair amount of recumbents here in the Seattle area. Hey, whatever gets you pedaling is okay in my book.
Still, for all their alleged speed advantage - why all of 'em I see are moving at 12 mph?
My favorite bike is the one I'm pedaling at the moment.
There are a lot of people who ride 'bents because they have some physical problem while riding a safety bicycle. These physical problems may also account for them going ONLY 16 mph. This doesn't account for all the safety bicycle riders who are ONLY going 16 mph but I won't quibble further on that one. In either case I applaud those slow riders for being on a bike at all. Bravo to you, keep pedaling. There are also a lot of people who ride them for the same reason people ride Tri bikes, or UCI approved road bikes, or beach cruisers, or mountain bikes, or what ever: it's just fun to get out on a wheel.
Some 'bents have an advantage that becomes significant at air speeds over about 20mph. That doesn't mean that the engine is capable of actually attaining that speed. The big disadvantage is that you can't get out of the saddle to attack a climb: you have to spin it.
I have documented that my average heart rate is 10 bpm lower for equivalent speed on my VK2 ('bent TT bike) as my Paramount. This data was collected using a Garmin 705 with cadence and wheel sensor during 6 rides on the same ~20 mile course with 1700 feet of climb, three rides on each bike. My average speed on the VK2 and the Paramount was within one mph. I have not published a report anywhere other than here.
I got interested in 'bents after more than 30 years of active cycling. I've never been a formal racer but I do like to beat my buddies to the coffee shop. A touring buddy let me ride his touring 'bent one day. It was such a challenge to ride that I decided I had to learn how. It's not for the faint of heart. You have to develop a few new muscles, a thick skin for the rude remarks, and get sick enjoyment out of looking silly.
-Rob