Recumbent trike - should I ?

DIscuss anything relating to non-standard cycles and their equipment.
liffy99
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 8:19am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby liffy99 » 28 Jul 2018, 4:30pm

Ah, but what if you put a wheel over the edge (eg a foot off the tarmac) so a back wheel runs much lower than the other ?
Sure, if both wheels encounter the same obstacle that's fine, but if there is a height differential . . .

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16595
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 28 Jul 2018, 4:38pm

If I ever ride off tarmac it’s up, not down.

But the actual angle you would tolerate as such is still very small.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1602
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby Tigerbiten » 29 Jul 2018, 11:35am

The risk of catching the derailleur on the ground is small due to how close to the tyre it is.
Unless your right alongside a 3" tall edge, the tyre lifts the derailleur before it will hit a rock.
I found I was more likely to catch the frame on the ground rather than the derailleur.
And I was having to be doing something silly before that happened.

More relevant is the amount of grass the derailleur can chew up cycling across a field.
The back tyre knocks the grass down and the chain feeds it into the derailleur.

It's more a question how do you want to bias your gears, high or low ??
If your interested in pure speed then the 26" wheel with it's higher gears is indicated and if your more interested easier hill climbing then a 20" wheel with it's lower gears is probably preferable.

I'll admit you can get low gears with a 26" wheel.
But you need bigger sprockets to do so which then increases the steps between the gears.
If you are going for a 26" wheel and low gears then a SA CS-RK3 hub may help.
With that hub it's fairly easy to run 25"-100" in normal mode with a drop to 15" in crawler mode and a climb to 130" in overdrive.

liffy99
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 8:19am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby liffy99 » 29 Jul 2018, 1:15pm

Points taken - thanks.
From memory my DF Audax bike (which I have only just started using again after 18 months total abstinence from cycling) has a gear range of about 24” to 105”.i very rarely used the two extremes and, frankly, never got very far anyway on hills more than about 15%.
I am leaning towards a 26 mostly as I doubt I will be tackling steep hills for at least a year. If push comes to shove, i can always change, just a shame that I would have to change the whole rear frame section too. And I do prefer the more ‘grown up’ look of a 26.
Just need to find the bike now and dithering between an ICE Sprint or Adventure HD (both with the rear suspension option).

Sprint
Faster, more agile, lighter but lower (just 3” ground clearance), more difficult to get in and out (knees are not great either) and narrower and shorter seating and cockpit.
Adventure HD
Lower geared, more spacious, more comfortable, twice the ground clearance but slower and heavier.

Anyone of similar size compared the two ? 1.61m, 101kg, 47” X Seam.

I have had a short ride on each, and managed both. Adventure ‘easier’ in general but defintely twitchier at speed. Would Sprint do for lightweight touring (bed and breakfasts etc rather than camping) ?
Use would really be minor roads, bike trails, towpaths. Some of the trails can be a little rough but certainly not cross country !

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3407
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Bramber, West Sussex

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby squeaker » 29 Jul 2018, 2:25pm

liffy99 wrote:Would Sprint do for lightweight touring (bed and breakfasts etc rather than camping) ?
Use would really be minor roads, bike trails, towpaths. Some of the trails can be a little rough but certainly not cross country !
This lady seemed to think a Sprint was OK ;) With 155mm cranks I find 24 / 34 (F / R, about 18GI) OK on up to 20% gradients. As for rough surfaces, IME potholed back lanes seem to offer more of a suspension challenge (especially as you are likely to approach them at speed) than offroad routes :roll: I'd certainly want wider tyres than the Duranos she used though :shock:
"42"

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1602
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby Tigerbiten » 29 Jul 2018, 3:34pm

The lower CoG on the Sprint means that you are more stable on corners at speed.
I've not ridden very far on an Adventure, less that a mile, so cannot comment on it.

Being on three wheels means you cannot wobble, so there's no real minimum speed uphill.
Also because of how you sit on the seat, you are more reliant on your quad muscles to climb with than on a bike, hence the need for "bent legs".
Having a slightly lower power output plus the extra weight of the trike means it's harder to climb hills fast.
But it's easier to climb hills slowly if you have low enough gears.
So with what I know now, I'd aim for a first gear of around 12"-15" and a top of around 100".

It's easy to tour on a Sprint.
I've done multi month tours of 4k-6k miles on mine.
Because of my disability, I use a trailer for a lot of my luggage.
But it's easy to use side bags and/or panniers to go from around 20 liters volume up to 60 liters volume.
Plus the added weight on the back wheel increases the grip so you don't wheel slip going uphill so often.

liffy99
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 8:19am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby liffy99 » 29 Jul 2018, 4:27pm

Goodo - all I need now then is a Sprint HD !
C’mon ICE - maybe there is a demand here ?

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3407
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Bramber, West Sussex

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby squeaker » 29 Jul 2018, 4:49pm

Should have said that I also have access to an old Trice 'T' (rear suspended), which I regard as a gentleman's touring tricycle :wink: Definitely more tippy than a Sprint, and less racy (in looks, as well as speed), the panniers stick out more (due to the splay on the rear rack to clear the rear suspension) so with the more upright, higher, seat and wider track it's decidedly less aerodynamic. Yet that higher, more upright, seat gives you a better view, you're further away from road spray, and with the suspended rear it's more comfortable than my un-suspended Sprint (26" rear). You pays yer money...
"42"

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8130
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Jul 2018, 8:16pm

I have ridden recumbent trikes since 1994 and have never damaged a rear derailleur

liffy99
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 8:19am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby liffy99 » 5 Aug 2018, 1:50pm

Well, defintely sold on an ICE. If nothing else for their fantastic customer support (and I’ve not bought one yet). Just looking for the right used one or save the pennies for a new build for the Spring whilst I rebuild a few muscles.
But here’s the thing . . . Adventure (HD) or Sprint ?
I do want a 26 with RS in either and have asked ICE if there are plans for a Sprint HD - but no.
Just that I find the jump from Sprint to Adventure quite a big one with a big difference in seat height, ground clearance and cockpit width.
I thought it wouldn’t take much to just produce a Sprint with a bit more width but apparently this would take a lot of engineering as it would upset frame stresses, steering geometry etc and probably bugger up the second law of thermodynamics for all I know.

So, how about a new model, or, even, a new cruciform section to allow people a gradual transition ?
For example a slightly less dropped and wider cross member to swap to a more hybrid compromise between the two current models ?

For ICE to even contemplate a new model would mean a lot of engineering input and tha ability to procure at least a couple hundred framesets. So there would need to be significant interest. Wonder if there is and how did ICE decide on doing an HD version of their Adventure ?

Unless anyone knows how to increase ground clearance, width, and reduce seat height on a Sprint what do you think ?
Should I make this into a poll ?

hercule
Posts: 845
Joined: 5 Feb 2011, 5:18pm

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby hercule » 5 Aug 2018, 4:08pm

You can increase ground clearance on the Sprint by opting for front suspension (will give you about a couple of cm)... and you could get the base of the seat a bit lower (not sure by how much) by opting for the hard shell seat. At least that’s my experience on the (narrower) QNT. The Trice Q had the same width as the Adventure is now, I think, so would be pretty close to your ideal of a wider Sprint.

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1602
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby Tigerbiten » 5 Aug 2018, 5:29pm

There was an 8" difference in width between the two Q models and ICE split the difference with the Sprint.
So the old Q was 4" wider than a Sprint.

If your after that model, have a word with Kevin Dunseath at D-Tek, Tel. 01353 648177, Email dtekhpvs@btconnect.com.
He's the person to contact about secondhand recuments as he has contacts over the whole country.

Are you after speed or ease of hill climbing ??
If it's speed then the 26" backend is fine.
If it's hill climbing then the 20" backend has naturally lower gears.
But it is possible to retrofit any new/old parts to any frame as the frame tube size has never altered.

Luck ......... :D

UpWrong
Posts: 690
Joined: 31 May 2009, 12:16pm
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby UpWrong » 5 Aug 2018, 6:55pm

I think there are gaps in ICE's offerings. They've put a lot of effort into seat variations, wrist rests and folding refinements but there's a 4" seat height difference between the Sprint and Adventure and there is no narrow track option which I think would be helpful for storage and for negotiating barriers.

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3407
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Bramber, West Sussex

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby squeaker » 5 Aug 2018, 7:57pm

UpWrong wrote:.... and there is no narrow track option which I think would be helpful for storage and for negotiating barriers.
Can't say I really notice the difference in barrier clearance between my previous, narrow track, 'S' and my current Sprint (5cm wider track), especially as I seem to catch my Radical bags (if full) on the barrier (especially with the long wheelbase 'S'). I do (vividly :shock: ) recall the effect of the higher seat on a 'T', despite the extra 10cm track :lol:
"42"

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1602
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Recumbent trike - should I ?

Postby Tigerbiten » 5 Aug 2018, 9:08pm

I noticed the difference between my old Q and the new Sprint when I first got it.
The Q is slightly wider than a standard wheelchair, while the Sprint is roughly the same width.
So if something is built exactly to pass a wheelchair then you may get through it on a Sprint but be stopped on a Q.
So I know a couple of gaps in anti-cycling barriers that I never got through on my Q but I can on my Sprint.

Luck ......... :D