[python] Re: Climbing and test rides
- From: "Sam v. Herwaarden" <sammelweis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: python@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:55:19 +0200
> So, why the extension in the first place? Well, in non-technical terms, I
> envision the "balance" envelope as being a large "V" shape (when looking at
> the bike from the front or rear) with the point touching the ground at the
> tires. If the CoG is very low, the bike doesn't have to tip side to side
> very much before the CoG is outside this "V", and you lose control and tip
> over. I figured that if the CoG was raised, this would not only allow the
> CoG to travel further before it got out of control, but the extra movement
> distance would mean you could "feel" the tipping a little easier, and allow
> the rider to make less precise corrections to regain balance.
Yeah - this is the reason why a (normal) recumbent like a Condor is
much easier to ride in rough terrain than others.
> How did the extension work? Like a charm! :) I was amazed at how much the
> handling changed by raising the seat 2", while leaving everything else the
> same. My friend who could already ride it, looked far smoother and he
> commented on how much easier it was to keep control. He was practicing
> figure 8's and doing very tight turns both with and without clipless pedals.
> For me, while I couldn't ride or balance the python at all before, I found
> that I could now ride a few feet balancing myself and I could actually
> "feel" the balance of the bike now. This was in one ride that lasted under
> 2 minutes. Our other friend who could balance it a little bit before, but
> still had big stability problems, and could now ride it too. We were all
> very pleased and very excited at this "breakthrough".
=0 That's amazing.
> While lots of theoretical conversation, applications and math are fine from
> an engineering standpoint, they don't do me much good, unfortunately. I
> need plain information on a particular aspect of the bike, and exactly what
> it does, good or bad. IE, I know that angles higher than about 68 degrees
> make the front end feel "light" and too easy to steer(some don't like this,
> others do). Now I also know that the higher the seat, the easier it is to
> feel the balance point and learn to ride. I imagine there is a point where
> the seat is now too high, and I also wonder what the BB to seat relation
> does as far as control goes. On my python, I'm going to raise the seat
> three inches and see if that has a further positive effect, which I think it
> will. I'll try to experiment a little and see what it does when I get the
> seat at 32 or 33cm. The seat position of the python is similar to that on
> high racer recumbents, so, as long as a functional BB to seat measurement is
> maintained, has anyone come across any good reasons to have a low python
> aside from possible aerodynamic advantages?
Well it seems to be really important to be able to touch the ground
easily, and it might make a difference when looking at that. But
actually I don't really know at what heights this starts to matter.
I'd guess somewhere around 35 cm.
Sam
============================================================
This is the Python Mailinglist at freelists.org
Listmaster: Juergen Mages jmages@xxxxxx
============================================================
Other related posts:
