After the Linear

[a.twiddler]

After the Linear
I’ve recently been pondering what I’d want in a future recumbent as I’m starting to take the virtues of the ever ready Linear for granted. It’s no rocketship, but it goes everywhere its size will permit, including some unexpectedly badly surfaced tracks. It will get up practically everything I point it at, albeit slowly. Even if some of its ancient components have broken or fallen off, I’ve managed to bodge it so it’s always got me home. It’s eminently fixable.

The main aim would be to try to find something with the comfort and adaptability of the Linear but would fit on a train as part of a tour, as could be done with a diamond frame bike. Maybe a leetle more average speed for the same output without comfort suffering for it.

Over a year ago I acquired a Dawes Lowrider SWB but despite a lot of input it just didn’t gel. Like the Linear I bought it without trying it for size but unlike the Linear it didn’t have the adjustability. The seat was impressively low but the boom wouldn’t adjust back quite far enough. Nearly but not quite, giving me pains in the back of my over extended legs on any ride of more than a few miles. It was too nice to take a hacksaw to the frame. It had to go.

I have since sat on a Kingcycle which was not a bad fit, light, if somewhat old, though would really need a smaller size to be content on one. Then there are the peculiar wheel sizes.

Recently tried a Street Machine GT the seat of which had me on tippy toes. The boom looked as if it ought to fit though not 100% certain without actually adjusting it. So, the standard seems to be, lower than a SMGT. I wonder if a Grasshopper would be low enough with its dual 20” wheels? A non folding one being older might be more affordable though the fold could be handy. It would be nice to continue the tradition of folding recumbents started with the Linear. Still, probably out of my range. I’ve learnt my lesson after the Lowrider though -always try before you buy.

The Linear has seen off one bike, may possibly see off the trike too for space considerations.

It has given me a check list to look for in a SWB recumbent.

1.Lowish seat and boom adjustability suitable for a shorty, not too much seat recline or at least, some adjustability.

2. Good gear range, or the ability to change things to get it the way I want it.

3. Bottom bracket not too high above the seat line.

4.Possibly rear suspension.

5. USS (though may be flexible on that if other factors are favourable).

6.Luggage capacity.

7. Made in the 21st century.

8. Versatile enough to be able to be ridden on unmade surfaces, with mudguard clearances.

9. Value for money!

Am I asking for too much? I think it will be a while before the Linear is superseded!


Any suggestions would be helpful. Just bear in mind that what most people think of as average sized is probably Land of the Giants territory for me!

 

[grldtnr]

The only one I know of is the Azub Origami, 20" folding, 'Hamster' tiller bars, from £3500.
Must be others, but I am predisposed to the Azub brand.

 

[a.twiddler]

A folding bike is not my main aim, more of a "nice to have" if it's there. In terms of value for money, used is the route I had in mind. Another one for my list for "try before you buy".

 

[grldtnr]

A folding bike is not my main aim, more of a "nice to have" if it's there. In terms of value for money, used is the route I had in mind. Another one for my list for "try before you buy".

Not many Azubs on the Brit market, rare as hens teeth, I would think used, there might be the Ross crystal or the Orbit version , I 'd go for the Orbit, was one on e- bay that went for silly money a while back, I'd like to have one myself, but they will be getting Von in years now ,30 + yrs by now.
When ICE took over Ross recumbent, they built a few solos, then majored on the trikes.

 

[a.twiddler]

With smaller wheels, I would think rear suspension, at least, even a rubber block, would be helpful. Even the 26" rear wheel of the Low Rider transmitted more road bumps than I would have liked.

A comment from AZUB re the Origami suggests that "smaller riders may have difficulty reaching the ground due to the seat height". How their suspended Mini, or the HPV Grasshopper stack up on that front remains to be seen, let alone minimum boom length. Of course small wheels aren't a guarantee of compatibility with short legged riders, or larger wheels an obstacle with a suitable frame design. There's bound to be something out there that steers a middle course. Finding something to try is, as always, the hurdle. Problem is, from previous experience, likely candidates tend to be in Penzance or the north of Scotland somewhere.

Silly money and getting on in years are not a good combination, unless you're a collector. Note that I did post "made in the 21st century".

Still, I'm open to ideas.

 

[404 Not Found Anywhere]

The Nazca Fuego might be worth looking at and though it’s no longer made it was made this century! It’s also one of the few bents to come in small and large sizes. As one on the relatively short side myself (31” inseam) it’s really easy to get your feet down and whilst foot-front wheel conflict is a potential, I think my huge feet play a part in that but this was quickly resolved with 152mm cranks (which later spread to my trikes too). The rear suspension is effective and adjustable. In a fit of foolishness I nearly sold mine (and I’m in the North of Scotland 😄) but sanity prevailed and suddenly it’s getting a lot more use than previously. Laid Back Bikes in Edinburgh is the place to go if you’re looking for one I reckon - he doesn’t have one listed at the moment but probably knows more about them than anyone else in the UK.

The Challenge Hurricane was another i considered (20” all round, rear suspension) but they’ve been out of production for quite a while now. I did think about the HPV Grasshopper but I think it’s seat is much higher.

 

[404 Not Found Anywhere]

Another thought that comes to mind is the ICE B1… basically one of their trikes but with 2 wheels, probably closest to a modernised Pashley PDQ. DTek (Mr Magoo on this forum) might be able to help out. The original Velovision review had, I recall, a 5’2” test rider on it.

 

[grldtnr]

Best bet , I think is peruse the used market out in The Netherlands, means traveling, but if your looking for a medium wheelbase machine, good a place as any, thinking there is more a market for recumbents , the Dutch are of course a cycling nation.

 

[a.twiddler]

The Pashley PDQ gets good reviews. I was on the verge of buying one when I was advised that the square seat base combined with its height made it difficult for shorties to get a foot down securely. A lower version certainly has an appeal. Not easy to find detailed info on the ICE B1 online such as dimensions, durability (The Ross bikes and trikes seem to have a reputation for fragility which I hope that ICE have overcome). Again, not many produced so rarity and the ICE name work against the likelikood of finding a bargain. DTek apparently has all the spares for these now so maybe need to go to the source to find out more.

A trip to the Netherlands is unlikely to happen in the near future, and Brexit has introduced costs and complications to private buying from Europe. Once I've expanded my checklist, perhaps an appointment at DTek is the most likely option.

 

[404 Not Found Anywhere]

I had a PDQ as one of my first two wheel recumbents… nice machine to ride but just too high for me to stop with confidence. The hammock nature of the seat means you’re really entirely dependent on your knee-foot length as to whether or not you can ride it.

 

[a.twiddler]

Something I came across as a no longer produced HP Velotechnik model is the Spirit. Early models had a 16/20" wheel combination and from the online manual, "can be adjusted to suit from 5' to over 6' riders". A revised later model had a 20/20" wheel combination but a criticism of that model was that the seat height no longer catered for the shorter rider. Rather upright seat, dual suspension, OSS bars only. One thing that did irritate me was constant reference to it being a "good first recumbent or urban recumbent" as if your legs are somehow going to get longer as you become more experienced. One drawback I could think of is that being a HPV, it's likely to be a bit of a lorry, weightwise.

Anyone out there got any experience of these for touring or general use? Train -friendliness, etc?

 

[FrankCrank]

I've built and ridden all three basic types of recumbent, but the SWB format was my least favorite. The main negative for me was the height of the BB relative to the seat, as compared to say a trike or LWB. I ran it for several months till finally giving up - then up-cycled into other projects. I'm around 5'-7", and used a 24"x20 wheel set up. It was also a lot more twitchy, so gotta admire those that ride one with USS, mine being OSS. Not meant to discourage in any way, just not suited to me.

 

[a.twiddler]

There are a lot of trade offs in recumbent design. If you want a low seat in a SWB the BB is likely to be relatively high to clear the front wheel which would be exaggerated by shortening the boom, unless the front wheel was tiny. Tiny wheels would call for some sort of suspension, which would raise the height again, and maybe call for a longer wheelbase to help with stability. So it goes round and round. If you're not Mr Average, or a woman, many of whom are shorter than men, you find that recumbent bikes are not very inclusive. Get a trike, I hear many cry. But I like bikes, I reply. I have a trike, but guess what, it hardly gets used compared to my two wheelers.

With a LWB of the classic American design there is no need for suspension and it might just be my good luck that the Linear has a tolerably low seat and a highish bottom bracket (by LWB standards anyway) which might not be the case in designs using conventional tubular frames. Looking at photos side by side the step over seems higher on many, too. I've seen one photo of a Linear where the owner has flipped the clamp-on bottom bracket so it's above the frame, though you wouldn't be able to use a front derailleur. LWBs don't seem to be a UK or European thing (Peer Gynt or Dino aside), more popular in the USA.

Compact long wheelbase or mid wheelbase designs seem to have fallen out of favour yet on paper they have advantages. No longer than an upright bike, so not difficult to get on a train, uncomplicated chain line, no unwieldy boom protruding from the front to collide with things when wheeling it about, transmission is effectively within the wheelbase, wide adjustability by moving the seat. Allegedly easy to learn to ride, so we get into the "entry level" or "first recumbent" category. The implication is that they're perhaps not challenging enough, built for convenience and comfort, you'll outgrow them, not edgy enough, you'll want something faster. Even among odd looking recumbents, they look spindly and ungainly. Things like Bike-E or Oke-Ja or HP Velo Spirit which pop up on ebay from time to time. There are apparently others which look more like conventional designs, crank forward bikes but getting away from the benefits of recumbents.

Until something pops up near enough for me to try I'm a bit stuck. Probably something with a "name" such as Nazca or HP Velotechnik might be out of my price range anyway, though I'm not averse to something that might be a mild project.

I'm just thinking aloud, really, considering the possibilities of bikes that fit me and could go on a train as part of a longer trip.

 

[PaulM]

The HPV Spirit 16/20 was my first 'bent. Very underrated. Been tempted to buy one again, but if the seat breaks you're stuck because HPV no longer have parts.

 

[PaulM]

HPV Grasshopper (I had one) or Nazca Fiero would fit.