Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

So Bacchetta is introducing a new LWB model. I suppose they can see the writing on the wall and are jumping on our LWB bandwagon.
After all of the high racer fuss, in the end there's nothing quite like the ride from a LWB bike. I have to say the bike looks like a Stratus.....a look that seems like two bikes were hacked together and welded into one.

There's a lesson to be learned here, if you like originality and want the best go the the source....EASY RACERS and except no substitutes,

Freddy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 52

Really, Freddy, I think you have little to worry about. Shooting from the hip, I'd say that the majority of those who purchase Bacchetta's new toy, will be dedicated Bacchetta purist - customers you probably have little or no access to anyway. Besides, Easy Racers has a good 25 years head start!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 277

I thought the bike looked like a spare version of the Stratus too. It lacks the multiple triangulation of the Easy Racer design and would lack the high strength to weight ratio in consequence. Then too, anyone who has tried a Stratus and then an Easy Racer knows the difference. Methinks Bacchetta picked the wrong model.

Bill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

PaPa and Bill I think your both right. I didn't post that because I'm worried, only because in the end I'm sure even Bacchetta can see that a high racer is a very one demensional bike and somewhat limited at that. The growing number of folks who have purchased a high racer and found out it just didn't work for them is growing and I suppose they are just trying to find other models to accomodate those people. What I wanted to point out is that the LWB bike is the most predictable and in the end makes the best platform to base a bike on.

Freddy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 52

The Bacchetta LWB is only one of many such 'triangle-less' designs. Most of which, (more or less) achieve the intended goal. By using a single 'mono' tube between the seat and the bottom bracket, the designer satisfies three, very important criteria:

1. Greater rigidity (read efficiency) between the seat and the pedals.
2. Seat adjustments retain consistant seat-to-crank relationship.
3. Is far cheaper to mass produce.

All noteworthy advantages when selling a large number of bikes to a variety of X-seams - cost effectively. So what if the bike is 2 pounds heavier?... just means it'll be 1k cheaper. By no stretch of the imagination, am I pro 'mono'. I do however, see the beauty of said designs.

Freddy; what is your x-seam?.. and any chance you'll be at the Recumbent Retreat this year?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 383

I am a fan of the triangulated, "normal" or light tubing when applicable. Of course, there is more labor and so it costs more. Why do it this way if it is not better? It will take a lot of convincing (riding, not theory) for me to buy that a monotube design is as good or better that the triangulated design of the TE. The tubing of the TE is one of the main reasons why I bought the bike and I was happy to pay extra for it.

-Perry

PS. A friend of a friend is a heck of a bike builder. As good as any of the pros in my book. He recently built himself a killer rack. Guess what method: Triangulation to the extreme. Behold:

http://bessasandackerman.com/bob/px/?album=bryansrack

BTW, here is one of his bikes:

http://bessasandackerman.com/bob/px...nchframe&img=35

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 52

quote:

---

Originally posted by macpublish
I am a fan of the triangulated,..

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 383

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaPa
And I am a fan of intelligent design.

Perry,
Just because a bike embraces triangulation, doesn't automatically dictate superiority. ?Better? for specific applications and specific riders... perhaps, but I disagree that triangulation is 'thee' hands-down, superior construction method for ALL riders in ALL situations.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 94

I'm 145 and I find the TE to be the most comfortable bike I've owned (and sadly, I've owned more than my share). Set-up with appropriate tires for its intended use - 35mm-40mm touring tires - it floats along like a leaf on a stream.. :^)). OK, that was over the top, but seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's a classic that has nothing to fear from any quarter. And I'm with you Perry, aesthetically the triangulated frame has it all over the monotube.

Alan

__________________
Alan Barnard
The Recumbent Blog
www.recumbentblog.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 94

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fast Freddy
PaPa and Bill I think your both right. I didn't post that because I'm worried, only because in the end I'm sure even Bacchetta can see that a high racer is a very one demensional bike and somewhat limited at that. The growing number of folks who have purchased a high racer and found out it just didn't work for them is growing and I suppose they are just trying to find other models to accomodate those people. What I wanted to point out is that the LWB bike is the most predictable and in the end makes the best platform to base a bike on.

Freddy

---

__________________
Alan Barnard
The Recumbent Blog
www.recumbentblog.com

Last edited by thebentriders on 03-07-2007 at 12:10 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 52

Not to be facetious, Alan, but your colorful opinion sounds more like a sales pitch, than an unbiased observation. An opinion, I might add, which appears to have been grounded over a sporadic, 6 month period. So to be more precise, Alan, are you saying that the Tour Easy's ride characteristic(s), is essentially optimum, and that no further improvements are necessary (outside of the typical seat improvements or tire swapping?

Many seem to forget, that the Tour Easy/GRR geometry was originally conceived, intended and optimized for racing. An environment which not only stresses the importance of 'stiff' frames, but logically discourages the use of suspension. Driven by trophies and ergonomic advantages, Gardner Martin's pride and joy, trickled onto urban streets with little more than a refined, padded seat... bolted to same, record breaking, triangulated frame. The bike, as predicted, is a wonderful experience on reasonably smooth, race track like asphalt, but rears its ugly head (as do most unsuspended recumbents), at the onset of lightly broken surfaces or mismatched seams on cement. Most TE owners silently tolerate (or down-play) the ride qualities because of other advantages or overall 'sweetness' the TE continues to exude – NOT me.


Edited: Removed content (the last paragraph) which contained false info. My apologizes

Last edited by PaPa on 03-12-2007 at 07:33 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Suburbia
Posts: 94

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaPa
[B]Not to be facetious, Alan, but your colorful opinion sounds more like a sales pitch, than an unbiased observation. An opinion, I might add, which appears to have been grounded over a sporadic, 6 month period. So to be more precise, Alan, are you saying that the Tour Easy's ride characteristic(s), is essentially optimum, and that no further improvements are necessary (outside of the typical seat improvements or tire swapping?

---

__________________
Alan Barnard
The Recumbent Blog
www.recumbentblog.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: parkland florida
Posts: 122

I agree!!

__________________
Barry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 383

PaPa,

I don't know if it's a rider weight thing but I find the TE incredibly comfortable on the various roads I ride it on. Some are very smooth, others a bit chopped up but nothing terrible, I admit. I suppose for those who don't find this model comfy, maybe a FR is a better choice (or a different bike altogether). I know that when I bought my TE sight unseen, I was a bit worried about how comfy it would be and I briefly considered a FR instead, but I am glad I got the TE as I am a fan for steel. As for monotube in general, I add (quite respectfully) that I see a bit of a conflict with what you have written thus far. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that ER bikes have stiff or harsh ride. OTOH, you say about a monotube design:

quote:

---

1. Greater rigidity (read efficiency) between the seat and the pedals.

---

It's hard for me to imagine that monotube provides more comfort and greater rigidity/efficiency at the same time. I certainly can't read that from looking at some pics anyway. Perhaps I am misunderstanding or misreprensenting your opion. If so, please feel free to correct me.

Lastly, I am all for any criticism anyone has of the ER bikes. I think improvements can be made from looking at things critically, but I just want to understand exactly what that criticism is.



Perry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 277

I am laughing in sympathy with PaPa concerning this dialog. From Perry's questions it is clear that the subject can cause confusion for people not well schooled in the finer points of engineering and design. Everything that PaPa has said is correct. It is possible to get a given amount of rigidity in any plane using either a monotube or with triangulation using smaller tubing. As he has correctly explained, the difference is that the smaller tube/triangulation would be somewhat lighter in weight, the monotube somewhat heavier for a given level of rigidity, all else being equal.

Every design is a compromise and the weight of the rider and accessories will affect how any given bicycle design performs. A good frame builder can design and build a frame that optimizes the performance of the bike for an intended purpose. When a design is not specific there is no question that it will work better for some riders than for others. There is no contradiction in anything PaPa said. Bicycle frame geometry is just an exceedingly complex thing.

It is important for everyone to understand something that PaPa said in the beginning and that is that it is possible to provide a given amount of rigidity using a monotube or a triangulated design. For the same rigidity the monotube design would be somewhat heavier but he explained why that might be offset by other advantages.

I have used the somewhat vague term "rigidity" to cover both torsional stiffness (i.e. the tendency for the bottom bracket to twist under pedaling pressure) and for vertical stiffness (i.e. the frame flex relative to the earth as the bike goes over bumps and such). I think anyone can visualize that a big person might cause a frame to flex more than a smaller person. Think of two people both 70 inches tall, but one weighs 150 pounds, and the other 225 lbs. Both would require the same medium frame GRR or a TE. Can you see that the same bike would flex more with the bigger rider and not flex as much for the smaller rider? That is what PaPa is talking about and that is why different bikes might work well for some and not for others.

In addition to actual frame performace, different riders have different requirements so, for example, two riders of the same stature might have different opinions about the same bike with one finding the bike wonderful and the other not comfortable at all. I have experienced this with conventional DFs on a racing team where one rider performed more efficiently on a 56 cm frame whereas the other strongly prefered a 58 cm bike. Both riders were so close in overall stature that their distances seat to pedals and seat to handbars made the bikes interchangeable between them. Some things are just beyond measurement.

It is possible to say that a triangulated design would have superior strength to weight ratio all else being equal. But that does not mean that this configuration is going to perform better for every person or for every need.

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Bill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged