Recumbents and all feet forward machines
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Combine it with a velomobile shell, and you'd have your perfect fantasy wouldn't you Andrew?
Since I keep misplacing my common sense down the shed, I guess I'll have to borrow someone elses off the internet.
What really appeals to me with the Metabikes is the versatility of the frame. From what I can gather the Metaphrastic front fork can take a 26" or 28" (700c) wheel and maybe a 29" wheel and pretty wide tyre. As well as per the picture one can swap the front front fork out for a Surly Puglsey fork and go fat. All with the one frame.
Potentially a Audax, a commuter and a fat bike rolled into one
I tested a Surly moonlander with 4.7" tyres. OMGosh so plush to ride, I'm getting one, that recumbent would be so comfortable as well and can do dirt etc
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
If you are in terrain that has a real requirement for fat tyres, a recumbent (IMHO) is probably the worst choice of frame.
You are offering about 3 times the surface area of the chain to collect dust and sand at the beach.
If you are going over somewhat rough and uneven terrain, even the best suspension and fat tyres a recumbent can afford will still have you anticipating each "thump" with a squinty eyed grimace( The simple measure of lifting your seat out of the saddle and taking the bump with your knees - standard wedgie procedure - is not an option for bent riders). If the terrain suddenly requires a technical manouver, you can't lift or shift weight on any axis (front/forward or left/right) to any great end - granted that fat tyres would go a long way to reduce the technicality of such a manouver .... but if you are already in that terrain, the question is what are you doing there in a recumbent (much like if you are on a work site, what are you doing with high heels ... even if they are steel capped) .
In the absence of these terrain particulars (and in the absence of a fat tyre fetish), one is simply pushing around unnecessary rubber
Sure, you could negotiate such things in such a specced recumbent ... but if it was me I would be spending the whole time thinking it would be better to fit a different bike to the terrain or a different terrain for the bike.
IMHO recumbents and fat bikes wouldn't hybridize efficiently
Supposed to be more efficient that way as the churning feet are not making more surface area for drag
as they are in the area already covered by the body.
I recall reading that up to 300mm above seat was the ideal range.
My trike BB is about 250mm above the front of the seat and I've had no problems with it.
The biggest trouble to me is the high racer style where the ground is a long way off and my legs are short
so I can only get my toes on the ground. Not fun if you are stopping often in traffic.
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]