Both are of Dave piloting the Milan & were filmed by David Gardiner. They are short, but give a great sense of how the Milan looks on the road, as well as how fast it can go!
Originals can be found here & here
Wednesday 31 October 2012
Early video footage...
Dave McCraw has put some of the initial bits of video footage up onto YouTube. It can be seen here:
& here:
Both are of Dave piloting the Milan & were filmed by David Gardiner. They are short, but give a great sense of how the Milan looks on the road, as well as how fast it can go!
Originals can be found here & here
Both are of Dave piloting the Milan & were filmed by David Gardiner. They are short, but give a great sense of how the Milan looks on the road, as well as how fast it can go!
Originals can be found here & here
Monday 29 October 2012
Commuting after dark
On Sunday morning, the clocks went back; which means many fewer concious hours in daylight for the next few months. My next evening commute in daylight will be be Feb/March time & from the back end of November, I'll have six weeks of commuting in the morning in darkness.
When working office hours, the first commute in the dark comes as a shock since it'd been light until six on Friday & today it was getting dark as I was leaving work. & the first nigh-time commute of the season is always a little anxiety provoking; especially with a new bike. I also had the opportunity to try the lights in anger for the first time, as well as to see whether traffic reacted differently.
The opening 2km were a huge traffic jam that took me nearly 20 minutes to clear (I really don't want to filter just now). Whilst that was annoying, it was a good opportunity to test how well I was being seen. The answer was, as ever in the VM, far too well. As the road opened out, I held primary at 40 ish km/h & traffic held back & passed wide when it did go past. So I was either far more visible than I normally am on the road, or it was magic... Despite the comments of someone who is clearly a risk to bollards, children and prams (NSFW language used in link, be warned!), I'm going to guess that it was the former. I have never had road room like I did today. OK, it helps that I'm holding a bit more speed, but even so. Tonight, on a bit of dual carriageway, a driver slowed and flashed me out having noticed the roadworks in my lane. Said driver can only have had me in his eyeline for less than 2 seconds &, as he passed, I saw that it was a black cab driver: not your stereotypical cycle-concious driver. (Chapeau, sir, if you are reading this, that was a courteous & aware piece of driving). & a bus driver picked me in his side mirror from 50+m away (I was slowing to let him out of the bus stop (partly out of politeness & partly in fear that he hadn't seen me), but he didn't pick that I was slowing. I had to actually stop for a couple of seconds before he moved. I'm guessing he saw me, despite being in a huge vehicle with limited visibility, poor lighting for night vision & a huge number of distractions).
Night commuting by velomobile is OK, then. It takes a chunk more concentration and I am really glad I got mirrors on both sides, but I didn't feel worried at all once I got going. Once again, it outperforms my other machines by a good margin as a commuter.
So if you hear someone tell you that VMs or recumbents are difficult to see (or that the riders "would be better off going to Dignitas"), point them in this direction & point out that thousands of Glasgow drivers can see me incredibly clearly, even in the dark. If you, as a driver, can't see recumbents, maybe it's time to stop driving since you appear to be in 99.9th percentile of incompetence...
When working office hours, the first commute in the dark comes as a shock since it'd been light until six on Friday & today it was getting dark as I was leaving work. & the first nigh-time commute of the season is always a little anxiety provoking; especially with a new bike. I also had the opportunity to try the lights in anger for the first time, as well as to see whether traffic reacted differently.
The opening 2km were a huge traffic jam that took me nearly 20 minutes to clear (I really don't want to filter just now). Whilst that was annoying, it was a good opportunity to test how well I was being seen. The answer was, as ever in the VM, far too well. As the road opened out, I held primary at 40 ish km/h & traffic held back & passed wide when it did go past. So I was either far more visible than I normally am on the road, or it was magic... Despite the comments of someone who is clearly a risk to bollards, children and prams (NSFW language used in link, be warned!), I'm going to guess that it was the former. I have never had road room like I did today. OK, it helps that I'm holding a bit more speed, but even so. Tonight, on a bit of dual carriageway, a driver slowed and flashed me out having noticed the roadworks in my lane. Said driver can only have had me in his eyeline for less than 2 seconds &, as he passed, I saw that it was a black cab driver: not your stereotypical cycle-concious driver. (Chapeau, sir, if you are reading this, that was a courteous & aware piece of driving). & a bus driver picked me in his side mirror from 50+m away (I was slowing to let him out of the bus stop (partly out of politeness & partly in fear that he hadn't seen me), but he didn't pick that I was slowing. I had to actually stop for a couple of seconds before he moved. I'm guessing he saw me, despite being in a huge vehicle with limited visibility, poor lighting for night vision & a huge number of distractions).
Night commuting by velomobile is OK, then. It takes a chunk more concentration and I am really glad I got mirrors on both sides, but I didn't feel worried at all once I got going. Once again, it outperforms my other machines by a good margin as a commuter.
So if you hear someone tell you that VMs or recumbents are difficult to see (or that the riders "would be better off going to Dignitas"), point them in this direction & point out that thousands of Glasgow drivers can see me incredibly clearly, even in the dark. If you, as a driver, can't see recumbents, maybe it's time to stop driving since you appear to be in 99.9th percentile of incompetence...
Thursday 25 October 2012
Random bits and pieces
Impressionistic side by side assessment of the Milan and Fujin
At the weekend, Dave McCraw & David of Laid Back Bikes visited. Dave McCraw had done a sequence of pieces on his blog on the building of the Milan & he came round for a try out. We rode together for a circular route around 10km with me on the Fujin and Dave in the Milan with David on a Nazca Fuego, whilst Dave got used to the handling of the Milan. He then took it for 2*10km circuits of a local piece of quiet dual carriageway and managed some impressive speeds. I'll leave the writing of that up to him, however, it is worth reflecting on how the machines compared whilst ridden side by side.- The Fujin feels so much faster being open and unfaired with the wind in your face etc. It is, however, incredibly slow in comparison. To be fair, the Milan had a far better engine fitted, but then Dave was backing off whilst acclimatising too. I could easily put 100m into the Milan starting from standing, but this was gained back very quickly once speeds got up. On the one occasion that I was trying to catch Dave, I'm fairly sure he was soft pedalling, but catching him was amazingly difficult. This was on a 2% uphill. Inside, it's not that dramatic (well, it's incredibly loud, but it doesn't feel that fast), but from outside, it looks like it's shifting.
- The Milan can climb gentle inclines with no bother, as well as short, sharp ones. Dave dropped me on every hill, despite being in a machine weighing 22kg more. I would need a long, >5% drag to drop him.
- The Milan doesn't really compare to a bike at all. It was fascinating riding the Fujin after having done decent mileage exclusively in the Milan. One can compare speed versus power input, turning circle and aerodynamics on paper, but they feel like two different types of machines. They feel more different than an upright and a 'bent do. Velomobiles are genuinely their own class of vehicle. I love both, don't get me wrong, but trying to compare the two is simply not possible in terms of the experience they provide.
- Kudos to David for staying close to the Milan on it's first 10km dual carriageway circuit in order to get photos. There are some really good shots on his Flickr photostream.
- David has some video on facebook. There may be more to follow; watch this space.
Extra Long Commutes
Coming home from work today, I passed "Road ahead closed" sign at a junction made complex by traffic not being sure whether it was passing or not. My attention was on the road, so I didn't really process the sign. Which was a pain. 1km further on, the road was closed (surprisingly!). Closing 400m of road necessitated a 5km detour over some very lumpy roads including going back 1km on myself (I could have made this shorter, but didn't fancy the huge, fast motorway junction & 500m of road that's treated as a motorway slipway (it was actually motorway until about 18 months ago & folk haven't yet forgotten)). I had my phone running as a bike computer today (I was running Move! Bike Computer), so have some hard stats. The gross average was 22.5km/h. I was stopped for a good 5 or more minutes out of 40. The net (of stopping) average doesn't really work when there are so many stops (the second half of the first mile is solid traffic & there are more than 20 sets of traffic lights) since the acceleration and deceleration count into the average. Given that the detour had an extra 90m of climbing and the that home is 60m higher than bike parking, In addition, I was running into a 24km/h headwind for most of the route. Whilst this has a smaller effect on the VM than on a bike, you can still feel it quite clearly.What was interesting about the detour was an open downhill and piloting the Milan through a moderate crosswind. Unfortunately, these occurred at the same point. 64km/h in a crosswind is scary. Actually, 64km/h is scary to handle the Milan at (it gets super light steering & needs handled really gently), when you throw in a sudden crosswind as the shelter goes for 150m, it requires concentration. Fortunately, there was no traffic in either direction, so I just had to try to stay vaguely on my side of the road & avoid the kerbs, so it could have been worse. I might try to avoid another co-occurrence of those two in future until I have worked both out pretty well.
I hate that bit of road in the wind: last time I did it with 30km/h wind on an upright, my maximum safe speed was about 15km/h, so the Milan is better, but I need some time on the flat in cross winds before I try that road again when it's breezy....
The other interesting random fact today was that the winching speed uphill (I don't mean that in a Glasgow/Vale of Leven way...) of the Milan is 10km/h. Not a bad speed to be able to hold on 5-8% hills in a 30kg machine when out of shape: still a lot faster than walking!
Thursday 4 October 2012
Commuting ^2
You know that it's been a good ride when you try to stand up after a wee sit down after getting home and your legs buckle and threaten not to make it. My commute is about 8 miles, so it's pretty good good time trialling practice.
Going in today, I hardly felt it in my legs. Coming home, I stopped off at my LBS, so had a bit of a fankly route home through Glasgow & an extra 20m or so of climbing from riding right down to the river. Riding a velomobile through a city centre is fascinating. People treat you like a bike/car; randomly assigning attributes from each. The main thing that is apparent is that, given I'm enclosed, folk assume that I can't hear them. I heard numerous conversations about me from 2-3m away, with folk clearly oblivious to the fact I might be able to hear. The one person who decided to address me leant sideways to get face to face with his face about 30cm from mine. That was clearly the only way he could get eye contact....
Still, folk are generally positive, so it's not all bad & I like to think that I'm doing my bit for promoting cycling in general. I just wish that cameras in phones were less ubiquitous. Or that folk would ask before taking photos.
The VM is getting more familiar, as is how to undertake the route in it. I'm also doing that super fast recovery of fitness thing you do when you start back doing something, so am getting appreciably stronger too. (The rate of improvement nosedives frustratingly quickly, but the first few weeks are always fun).
So times are coming down.... I still refuse to use the GPS bike computer on my phone 'cos I'm not yet ready to deal with the distraction, but I got a couple of looks at my watch over the lightly trafficked section of the commute. Slightly different route each way, but there are 11 traffic-lit junctions, 6 pedestrian crossings and 1 roundabout each way. 2 right turns on the way in & 1 on the way home without lights. The timed section is 5.3 miles.
The way in's profile looks like this:
41 vertical metres of climbing and 83 of descending.
The way home:
86 vertical metres of climbing and 41 of descending. 6% is the toughest gradient either way. The big hill is 3 * 5% ramps. (Images are from Track Logs software, which I use & like lots)
So way in over this section was 15 minutes and 20 minutes coming home. (That's +/- a minute or two since it was timed by looking at my watch rather than with a stopwatch or anything exact). Still, a 21.2mph overall average in the above conditions for the easy section & 15.9mph on the way home is pretty impressive. Traffic was heavier coming home, so you can't draw an exact comparison. But still, an out-of shape cyclist shouldn't be able to do these times. I can't wait 'til I'm properly fit & can climb properly....
Going in today, I hardly felt it in my legs. Coming home, I stopped off at my LBS, so had a bit of a fankly route home through Glasgow & an extra 20m or so of climbing from riding right down to the river. Riding a velomobile through a city centre is fascinating. People treat you like a bike/car; randomly assigning attributes from each. The main thing that is apparent is that, given I'm enclosed, folk assume that I can't hear them. I heard numerous conversations about me from 2-3m away, with folk clearly oblivious to the fact I might be able to hear. The one person who decided to address me leant sideways to get face to face with his face about 30cm from mine. That was clearly the only way he could get eye contact....
Still, folk are generally positive, so it's not all bad & I like to think that I'm doing my bit for promoting cycling in general. I just wish that cameras in phones were less ubiquitous. Or that folk would ask before taking photos.
The VM is getting more familiar, as is how to undertake the route in it. I'm also doing that super fast recovery of fitness thing you do when you start back doing something, so am getting appreciably stronger too. (The rate of improvement nosedives frustratingly quickly, but the first few weeks are always fun).
So times are coming down.... I still refuse to use the GPS bike computer on my phone 'cos I'm not yet ready to deal with the distraction, but I got a couple of looks at my watch over the lightly trafficked section of the commute. Slightly different route each way, but there are 11 traffic-lit junctions, 6 pedestrian crossings and 1 roundabout each way. 2 right turns on the way in & 1 on the way home without lights. The timed section is 5.3 miles.
The way in's profile looks like this:
The way home:
So way in over this section was 15 minutes and 20 minutes coming home. (That's +/- a minute or two since it was timed by looking at my watch rather than with a stopwatch or anything exact). Still, a 21.2mph overall average in the above conditions for the easy section & 15.9mph on the way home is pretty impressive. Traffic was heavier coming home, so you can't draw an exact comparison. But still, an out-of shape cyclist shouldn't be able to do these times. I can't wait 'til I'm properly fit & can climb properly....
Thursday 27 September 2012
Commuting by Velomobile
I've been feeling pretty anxious about taking the VM into Glasgow at rush hour and have been collecting reasons why it might not be wise, but decided last night to bite the bullet and ride in to work...
Didn't feel too good about it this morning, but fronted up (with a short panic when I couldn't find my suit carrier) & hell I'm glad I did...
Whilst VM's have many uses, dense urban environments are probably not at the top of the list, especially at rush hour! But this is prob the best commuting bike I've used: huge luggage capacity (I've never been able to take a suit carrier on a bike before and was also carrying my Timbuk2 bag, 2 pairs of shoes (don't ask), a huge d-lock with cable addition and a waterproof. I prob could have taken more, but would have had to pack carefully. Certainly better than the 7 litres of space I have on the Fujin! The other thing is that you worry less about weight when the bike weighs nearly 30kg: what's another 5-10kg? I bought a mini d-lock for the Fujin to reduce weight 'cos I worry about these things on a light bike. I bought an extra big one for the VM. Add in the amazing being-visible-ness and this is pretty close to perfect.... Oh & the speed, can't forget the speed...
I have commuted this route a fair amount on both the trike and the Fujin. The route is rolling for the first half, then a big hill (down hill on the way in, up on the way home), then some dense traffic and big lumps. Going in today was the fastest I've ever done it, despite being the least fit I've been on this commute. Home was a different ball park: the hill slowed me somewhat. I was still faster than the trike's fastest time & not too far from the Fujin's. This is compared to being fitter on the other machines and filtering on them (I refused to today: I didn't want to get into advanced manoeuvres whilst still familiarising myself with the machine), so there was a time penalty in both.
Traffic behaves differently around the VM compared to both upright and 'bent bikes. Not worryingly so, but worth noting. Dual mirrors are great though. Cyclists were odd though. The road cyclist who decided to race me was a pain since he sat in a blind spot (I have three for a bike: behind and to the left, directly behind and behind and to the right; each are very small, but big enough to accommodate a road bike). I had no idea which of these he was in until he decided to overtake. (If you decide to race a VM, you can feel terribly proud of yourself if you overtake a very out of shape rider going uphill by paralysing them in a dangerous position since they can't see you and don't want to move in or out in case they hit you and can't accelerate 'cos they are checking mirrors and windows to try to see where you are. Good thing neither of us got injured, but you got past me for 30m, so it was prob worth it, right? & can you overtake on the right next time? You know, like in the Highway Code?) When the road went down, the VM came into its own though...
I wanted the Milan as a distance bike, but it's a really good commuter too.
*best commute ever*
Didn't feel too good about it this morning, but fronted up (with a short panic when I couldn't find my suit carrier) & hell I'm glad I did...
Whilst VM's have many uses, dense urban environments are probably not at the top of the list, especially at rush hour! But this is prob the best commuting bike I've used: huge luggage capacity (I've never been able to take a suit carrier on a bike before and was also carrying my Timbuk2 bag, 2 pairs of shoes (don't ask), a huge d-lock with cable addition and a waterproof. I prob could have taken more, but would have had to pack carefully. Certainly better than the 7 litres of space I have on the Fujin! The other thing is that you worry less about weight when the bike weighs nearly 30kg: what's another 5-10kg? I bought a mini d-lock for the Fujin to reduce weight 'cos I worry about these things on a light bike. I bought an extra big one for the VM. Add in the amazing being-visible-ness and this is pretty close to perfect.... Oh & the speed, can't forget the speed...
I have commuted this route a fair amount on both the trike and the Fujin. The route is rolling for the first half, then a big hill (down hill on the way in, up on the way home), then some dense traffic and big lumps. Going in today was the fastest I've ever done it, despite being the least fit I've been on this commute. Home was a different ball park: the hill slowed me somewhat. I was still faster than the trike's fastest time & not too far from the Fujin's. This is compared to being fitter on the other machines and filtering on them (I refused to today: I didn't want to get into advanced manoeuvres whilst still familiarising myself with the machine), so there was a time penalty in both.
Traffic behaves differently around the VM compared to both upright and 'bent bikes. Not worryingly so, but worth noting. Dual mirrors are great though. Cyclists were odd though. The road cyclist who decided to race me was a pain since he sat in a blind spot (I have three for a bike: behind and to the left, directly behind and behind and to the right; each are very small, but big enough to accommodate a road bike). I had no idea which of these he was in until he decided to overtake. (If you decide to race a VM, you can feel terribly proud of yourself if you overtake a very out of shape rider going uphill by paralysing them in a dangerous position since they can't see you and don't want to move in or out in case they hit you and can't accelerate 'cos they are checking mirrors and windows to try to see where you are. Good thing neither of us got injured, but you got past me for 30m, so it was prob worth it, right? & can you overtake on the right next time? You know, like in the Highway Code?) When the road went down, the VM came into its own though...
I wanted the Milan as a distance bike, but it's a really good commuter too.
*best commute ever*
Wednesday 19 September 2012
Milan internal pics
Tuesday 18 September 2012
Milan First Ride Report
I picked up my Milan on Sunday & rode it home on what should have been a fairly straight, flat 75km route, but managed to take a different route and did closer to 100km through some very hilly country. This was a really stupid mistake, but a good way of testing limits (although, I got far closer to mine than to those of the Milan).
First, some details:
It is a carbon Milan Mk2. Specced with a twin chainring up front, a 9 speed 11-32t cassette and a Dual Drive hub. It has the race wheels, hub brakes and the indicator/brakelight kit. There are two B&M Cyo lights up front. Internally, it has "Panzer steering" since I couldn't get on with tiller steering when I test rode a few VMs. Gear changing is handled by two grip shifts with the DD controlled by a three speed box on the left control stick. Left and right brakes are controlled by independent lever on the corresponding control stick and the lights and indicators are on two and three way rocker switches at the top of the sticks. So everything is immediately at hand. I had phone working as sat nav/bike computer mounted on a sticky pad on the RHS wheel arch. This is only partially visible, so will need moved at some point when I work out where to put it.
There are two Conti GP4 tyres with slimed inners up front and a Schwalbe Marathon Supreme (my favourite ever tyre) at the rear. Marathon Supremes don't fit up front, so had limited choice.
I started out in a huge down pour, so got to try it's wet weather performance first. Given that it lives in Glasgow, this will be its natural environment, so it was prob fitting that this was the start of the ride. My first surprise was how water-proof it isn't. I guess I was expecting car levels of weather protection, rather than hugely-improved-on-bike levels, which is what I got. So this was down to poor assumptions rather than a design flaw, but is worth noting. It is very impressive how good the visibility is in heavy rain: I was a little anxious about this, but it was fine when moving. Roundabouts in a downpour would be tougher, but you can always pop the flap forward for an unobstructed view. I got Makrolon coated plastic, but have no idea how much impact this had since I have no comparison.
Ride-wise, it is a completely different animal at speed compared with less than 20kph. Moving slowly, it is a pig to accelerate (which is to be expected with high mechanical resistance (from the chain routing) and the weight) and has heavy steering with almost no lock. It isn't a lot of fun (I know this well, my route included a couple of 10% climbs with no run up, and several more 7+%ers). At speed, however, it is a completely different experience. Easy to maintain pace, climbs well and (scarily) responsive steering. As would be expected, it descends fantastically. The plan appears to be to maintain speed. I could outclimb a stronger rider that me who was on a Nazca Fuego when I got a run up on the c2-3% slopes when I was riding accompanied, so the weight is offset by improved aerodynamics and momentum on the easier stuff. The steeper stuff needs a bigger run up or avoided. But you don't get one of these for climbing cols. Well, I didn't....
This is going to be properly warm during the summer months. It was 13°C outside when riding & I got very warm. This'll be very much appreciated in winter, but I may drop the hood in summer!
I have 150km planned over the weekend, including some night-time stuff, so can report a bit more fully after that. I'll get some pics up tomorrow too.
First, some details:
There are two Conti GP4 tyres with slimed inners up front and a Schwalbe Marathon Supreme (my favourite ever tyre) at the rear. Marathon Supremes don't fit up front, so had limited choice.
I started out in a huge down pour, so got to try it's wet weather performance first. Given that it lives in Glasgow, this will be its natural environment, so it was prob fitting that this was the start of the ride. My first surprise was how water-proof it isn't. I guess I was expecting car levels of weather protection, rather than hugely-improved-on-bike levels, which is what I got. So this was down to poor assumptions rather than a design flaw, but is worth noting. It is very impressive how good the visibility is in heavy rain: I was a little anxious about this, but it was fine when moving. Roundabouts in a downpour would be tougher, but you can always pop the flap forward for an unobstructed view. I got Makrolon coated plastic, but have no idea how much impact this had since I have no comparison.
Ride-wise, it is a completely different animal at speed compared with less than 20kph. Moving slowly, it is a pig to accelerate (which is to be expected with high mechanical resistance (from the chain routing) and the weight) and has heavy steering with almost no lock. It isn't a lot of fun (I know this well, my route included a couple of 10% climbs with no run up, and several more 7+%ers). At speed, however, it is a completely different experience. Easy to maintain pace, climbs well and (scarily) responsive steering. As would be expected, it descends fantastically. The plan appears to be to maintain speed. I could outclimb a stronger rider that me who was on a Nazca Fuego when I got a run up on the c2-3% slopes when I was riding accompanied, so the weight is offset by improved aerodynamics and momentum on the easier stuff. The steeper stuff needs a bigger run up or avoided. But you don't get one of these for climbing cols. Well, I didn't....
This is going to be properly warm during the summer months. It was 13°C outside when riding & I got very warm. This'll be very much appreciated in winter, but I may drop the hood in summer!
I have 150km planned over the weekend, including some night-time stuff, so can report a bit more fully after that. I'll get some pics up tomorrow too.
Wednesday 12 September 2012
Perceived safety, risk compensation and funny bikes
As a follow up from my previous post, I wanted to write something about the psychology of riding funny bikes and how it impacts on risk. It was pointed out to me that there was a difference in approach and that this could impact on safety too, so I thought I'd spend a few hundred words fleshing this out.
First, a concept that came out of road safety research: risk compensation. Wikipedia has a reasonable introduction on this concept. In essence, our behaviour changes when we feel safe and we compensate for this with riskier behaviour. There are plenty of examples on the linked to page above, but it has an impact on any safety oriented change. If this change has a small impact on how safe we feel, but a major one on the risks we face, outcomes should improve & if the converse is true, then outcomes will remain constant or get worse.
Should there be an intervention that has no real impact on safety, but which makes us feel considerably safer, then this is very much a bad thing since outcomes should get worse: the perfect anti-safety intervention.
Conversely, something that makes us feel less safe and reduces risk is the perfect intervention; it's just not very saleable.
I personally dislike the concept of "safety" when it comes to impacting on risks & would prefer things to be laid out carefully in terms of costs and in terms of the risks that they impact on, but I'm strange like that. See, the first thing I make sure of on a hot, sunny days ride that involves any speed at all is a pair of sunglasses (as long as they're appropriately made not to shatter), since I can reduce the risk of getting something in my eye and losing visibility on a fast turn and reduce the likelihood of not seeing things through glare. Wearing sunglasses doesn't make me objectively "safer", but it does help me control and minimise a real risk.
This comes out of the way in which humans are terrible at assessing risk. We genuinely are terrible. This is too big an issue to even start pulling apart, but it's pretty well established. Oddly, safety theory and behavioural economics (prospect theory) are two of the places where this is most explored; but either would make good places to read more. If we're terrible at assessing risk, promoting safety equipment as making you safer or focusing on the risk and not the numbers and reasons is doomed to fail. Not that my approach would work well; it'd just fail less badly. And allow appropriate re-adjustment after incidents.
An inability to assess risk efficiently and risk compensation (which are functions of system 1 taking charge of things when it really isn't in the interests of the person) are one of the major reasons for the incidents occurring to returning cyclists, who are one of the major at-risk groups on the road. (Interestingly, dissonance theory predicts that a returning cyclist who has been injured is more likely to form the belief/have the belief reinforced that cycling is dangerous, as well to share this belief, which is one of the reasons that we really need to be promoting good road craft rather than plastic lids and yellow jackets, but that's another subject).
This leads me on to the point of this post: how belief affects behaviour and how this affects risk.
Let's consider a typical recumbent cyclist, relatively to a typical upright cyclist. You are unlikely to feel safer than a typical cyclist either does or by internal comparison thereto. There are a few main reasons for this:
First, a concept that came out of road safety research: risk compensation. Wikipedia has a reasonable introduction on this concept. In essence, our behaviour changes when we feel safe and we compensate for this with riskier behaviour. There are plenty of examples on the linked to page above, but it has an impact on any safety oriented change. If this change has a small impact on how safe we feel, but a major one on the risks we face, outcomes should improve & if the converse is true, then outcomes will remain constant or get worse.
Should there be an intervention that has no real impact on safety, but which makes us feel considerably safer, then this is very much a bad thing since outcomes should get worse: the perfect anti-safety intervention.
Conversely, something that makes us feel less safe and reduces risk is the perfect intervention; it's just not very saleable.
I personally dislike the concept of "safety" when it comes to impacting on risks & would prefer things to be laid out carefully in terms of costs and in terms of the risks that they impact on, but I'm strange like that. See, the first thing I make sure of on a hot, sunny days ride that involves any speed at all is a pair of sunglasses (as long as they're appropriately made not to shatter), since I can reduce the risk of getting something in my eye and losing visibility on a fast turn and reduce the likelihood of not seeing things through glare. Wearing sunglasses doesn't make me objectively "safer", but it does help me control and minimise a real risk.
This comes out of the way in which humans are terrible at assessing risk. We genuinely are terrible. This is too big an issue to even start pulling apart, but it's pretty well established. Oddly, safety theory and behavioural economics (prospect theory) are two of the places where this is most explored; but either would make good places to read more. If we're terrible at assessing risk, promoting safety equipment as making you safer or focusing on the risk and not the numbers and reasons is doomed to fail. Not that my approach would work well; it'd just fail less badly. And allow appropriate re-adjustment after incidents.
An inability to assess risk efficiently and risk compensation (which are functions of system 1 taking charge of things when it really isn't in the interests of the person) are one of the major reasons for the incidents occurring to returning cyclists, who are one of the major at-risk groups on the road. (Interestingly, dissonance theory predicts that a returning cyclist who has been injured is more likely to form the belief/have the belief reinforced that cycling is dangerous, as well to share this belief, which is one of the reasons that we really need to be promoting good road craft rather than plastic lids and yellow jackets, but that's another subject).
This leads me on to the point of this post: how belief affects behaviour and how this affects risk.
Let's consider a typical recumbent cyclist, relatively to a typical upright cyclist. You are unlikely to feel safer than a typical cyclist either does or by internal comparison thereto. There are a few main reasons for this:
- Social factors - everyone keeps telling you how dangerous they are. Facts be damned, they have little impact on our beliefs and perceptions of risk when compared to the views of our peers. OK, this is true for uprights too, but there is a significant difference in scale. Furthermore, other cyclists will tell you how dangerous they are, which will have far more impact than a non-cyclist telling you this.
- Size - being lower down/feeling shorter makes you feel vulnerable. You can't help it. ("Across diverse species, physical size and, relatedly, strength, are elementary determinants of formidability, and this is also true of humans" from here (which is worth a read on this subject) referencing this). Size is fundamental to our assessment of threat. Reducing experienced size, makes other things seem bigger & therefore more threatening.
- Difference - being unusual makes you feel at risk. There is not always safety in crowds, but you normally feel safer if it is a crowd you feel you fit into.
Monday 10 September 2012
Recumbent safety: reflections on Kahneman's 2 mind system
If you ride recumbents, you're probably bored of the "Is it safe?" question & if you don't, you're probably thinking, "That looks dangerous." If you ride recumbents, you've probably experienced the way drivers give you far more space, if you haven't, you've probably asked how drivers even see them....
I've discussed this briefly here, but getting a congruent answer has always intrigued me. I've been reading loads of Daniel Kahneman's work recently & have finally got to an evidence-based model where theory predicts experience and practice: where the apparent dichotomy is explained.
Let's start from the top: are recumbents less likely to be hit by drivers? YES!
Now let's get into the why...
Kahneman writes about a 2 mind system, which is described elsewhere as a dual process account of reasoning. There's a fairly decent introduction here. The basics that you need to understand are the characteristics of the two systems. I'll use the terms that Stanovich and West coined that are used by Kahneman: system 1 & system 2. For more detail, there's plenty of research out there, but a basic overview would be that system 1 is the implicit, autonomic function (the stuff you do without thinking (like balancing a bike)) and system 2 is the explicit, effortful system. A simple example would be to ask you to complete the following sums:
(the answer to the second one is 408, in case you weren't sure (and the first one is 2, but you probably knew that)).
The other thing that's relevant here is how long it took you to solve the 2 equations. Even if you solved 2 using a calculator, it took seconds longer, right? Those seconds will mean a lot further down this piece. In addition, you probably considered different ways to solve the problem before jumping into one. You may even have evaluated it as you went through if you chose to do it in your head. This consideration is also quite critical further on.
OK, so far, so obvious: nothing shocking here is there? & it's all quite evidence-based and uncontroversial, but how does it relate to bikes....
Well, before we answer that, let's think about how driving works in this model. Well, just a thought before this:the brain has been around some 7 million years; how much of this has been spent at >30mph? Or more specifically: primates have been around for a few hundred thousand years; how much of this has been spent at >30mph? & finally: homo sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years; you know the question.....
There can have been no evolutionary advantage to being able to cope with these speeds & no reason to suggest that we might be able to deal with them competently. If we can add that dense urban environments are also very new, so 30mph in these environments is new condition in new environment & doubly (or doubly^2) odd....
(As a very limited biological aside, to my knowledge, animals who can manage these speeds get complete tunnel vision & fail to recognise all sorts of risks. I say "to my knowledge" deliberately since I know very little biology, so am happy to be corrected).
So since the brain is in an utterly alien environment, what does it do? What it always does when it can't answer questions: substitute and take shortcuts. So if I'm driving at 30 mph in a dense urban environment, what am I looking at? If you think you pick all of the relevant things, I have met you before. We pick things that are perceived as risks or threats and respond to them. There are those of you who have trained system 1 to look for more things and are more likely to pick important stuff, but you're unusual (remember), most of us don't.
So, if I'm riding a bike, can I rely on being seen? No. Brutal but simple. Even in primary position, you have no guarantees (in primary, you have an advantage in that all contact is seen as threat (socially or to insurance premiums or to delay in journey etc), but you're smaller, so less threatening. If you're not in primary, or, worse still, if you're in a weak secondary, don't expect anyone to see you. But you wear hi-viz, right, so it must be more visible, so I must be easier to see, right? (Ask yourself, how common is hi-viz? Can you expect something so common to crowd into the huge amount of potential things to be noticed by system 1?). Well, sorry, no. Hi-viz, is more visible in certain conditions, but visible and being seen are not equal. Being seen is all. Which means being seen as a threat or a risk, which means that system 1 will ask system 2 what to do. So, if you're on an upright, primary, looking like a Police officer or looking like an unconfident, blonde woman (thanks, Dr Ian Walker) is all that'll work.
So where do recumbents fit in all of this? What's the first reaction to a bent from most folk? WTF seems to summarise almost all of it for me. WTF is a fantastic reaction for a cyclist (or pedestrian) since it means that system 2 will be engaged. The first thing that will happen is slowing down whilst system 2 works out what to do. Slowly. Whilst accessing moral systems too.
We saw above that when system 2 is engaged then the outcomes tend to be more considered. Slowness, does not imply slow reactions, however; system 1 will be taking care of the basics whilst system 2 works out how to resolve this issue appropriately.
This model would predict then that under normal circumstances, system 1 will handle overtaking cyclists and will do this however it has been trained to undertake that manoeuvre. Where, however, something, threatening or unrecognised is seen, then system 2 will handle the manoeuvre. System 2 is more likely to undertake the manoeuvre with more care.
Furthermore, as familiarity increases and reduces the likelihood of system 2 engagement, system 1 will be being trained to pass 'bent cyclists with space.
As a caveat, there is no substitute for good road craft in staying safe on the road. If I have decent road craft (there is no substitute for good road craft: anyone cycling without a strong appreciation of this is daft; find a tutor if unsure, there's a bunch of them/us around), I'm prob fine. Especially if my road craft enables me to be aware of where I can and can't be seen & helps me to adjust for this... This model is looking more a relative probabilities in like for like situations. So I am certainly not implying that recumbent riders are safe by definition, but that they are less likely to be subject to ill-considered manoeuvres by drivers than if they were in the same position on an upright bike.
Which is something worth having.
Following feedback from a friend, I'll put another post up about the relative psychology of riders and how this impacts on safety; watch this space.
(I know there's a lot that's over simplified & under-explained, I was trying to make it readable: please ask if you want clarification. I'm confident in the theory & stake my life on it most days, so feel free to ask for explanation/clarification)
*Edit, there is a follow up post here*
I've discussed this briefly here, but getting a congruent answer has always intrigued me. I've been reading loads of Daniel Kahneman's work recently & have finally got to an evidence-based model where theory predicts experience and practice: where the apparent dichotomy is explained.
Let's start from the top: are recumbents less likely to be hit by drivers? YES!
Now let's get into the why...
Kahneman writes about a 2 mind system, which is described elsewhere as a dual process account of reasoning. There's a fairly decent introduction here. The basics that you need to understand are the characteristics of the two systems. I'll use the terms that Stanovich and West coined that are used by Kahneman: system 1 & system 2. For more detail, there's plenty of research out there, but a basic overview would be that system 1 is the implicit, autonomic function (the stuff you do without thinking (like balancing a bike)) and system 2 is the explicit, effortful system. A simple example would be to ask you to complete the following sums:
- 1+1=?
- 17*24=?
(the answer to the second one is 408, in case you weren't sure (and the first one is 2, but you probably knew that)).
The other thing that's relevant here is how long it took you to solve the 2 equations. Even if you solved 2 using a calculator, it took seconds longer, right? Those seconds will mean a lot further down this piece. In addition, you probably considered different ways to solve the problem before jumping into one. You may even have evaluated it as you went through if you chose to do it in your head. This consideration is also quite critical further on.
OK, so far, so obvious: nothing shocking here is there? & it's all quite evidence-based and uncontroversial, but how does it relate to bikes....
Well, before we answer that, let's think about how driving works in this model. Well, just a thought before this:the brain has been around some 7 million years; how much of this has been spent at >30mph? Or more specifically: primates have been around for a few hundred thousand years; how much of this has been spent at >30mph? & finally: homo sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years; you know the question.....
There can have been no evolutionary advantage to being able to cope with these speeds & no reason to suggest that we might be able to deal with them competently. If we can add that dense urban environments are also very new, so 30mph in these environments is new condition in new environment & doubly (or doubly^2) odd....
(As a very limited biological aside, to my knowledge, animals who can manage these speeds get complete tunnel vision & fail to recognise all sorts of risks. I say "to my knowledge" deliberately since I know very little biology, so am happy to be corrected).
So since the brain is in an utterly alien environment, what does it do? What it always does when it can't answer questions: substitute and take shortcuts. So if I'm driving at 30 mph in a dense urban environment, what am I looking at? If you think you pick all of the relevant things, I have met you before. We pick things that are perceived as risks or threats and respond to them. There are those of you who have trained system 1 to look for more things and are more likely to pick important stuff, but you're unusual (remember), most of us don't.
So, if I'm riding a bike, can I rely on being seen? No. Brutal but simple. Even in primary position, you have no guarantees (in primary, you have an advantage in that all contact is seen as threat (socially or to insurance premiums or to delay in journey etc), but you're smaller, so less threatening. If you're not in primary, or, worse still, if you're in a weak secondary, don't expect anyone to see you. But you wear hi-viz, right, so it must be more visible, so I must be easier to see, right? (Ask yourself, how common is hi-viz? Can you expect something so common to crowd into the huge amount of potential things to be noticed by system 1?). Well, sorry, no. Hi-viz, is more visible in certain conditions, but visible and being seen are not equal. Being seen is all. Which means being seen as a threat or a risk, which means that system 1 will ask system 2 what to do. So, if you're on an upright, primary, looking like a Police officer or looking like an unconfident, blonde woman (thanks, Dr Ian Walker) is all that'll work.
So where do recumbents fit in all of this? What's the first reaction to a bent from most folk? WTF seems to summarise almost all of it for me. WTF is a fantastic reaction for a cyclist (or pedestrian) since it means that system 2 will be engaged. The first thing that will happen is slowing down whilst system 2 works out what to do. Slowly. Whilst accessing moral systems too.
We saw above that when system 2 is engaged then the outcomes tend to be more considered. Slowness, does not imply slow reactions, however; system 1 will be taking care of the basics whilst system 2 works out how to resolve this issue appropriately.
This model would predict then that under normal circumstances, system 1 will handle overtaking cyclists and will do this however it has been trained to undertake that manoeuvre. Where, however, something, threatening or unrecognised is seen, then system 2 will handle the manoeuvre. System 2 is more likely to undertake the manoeuvre with more care.
Furthermore, as familiarity increases and reduces the likelihood of system 2 engagement, system 1 will be being trained to pass 'bent cyclists with space.
As a caveat, there is no substitute for good road craft in staying safe on the road. If I have decent road craft (there is no substitute for good road craft: anyone cycling without a strong appreciation of this is daft; find a tutor if unsure, there's a bunch of them/us around), I'm prob fine. Especially if my road craft enables me to be aware of where I can and can't be seen & helps me to adjust for this... This model is looking more a relative probabilities in like for like situations. So I am certainly not implying that recumbent riders are safe by definition, but that they are less likely to be subject to ill-considered manoeuvres by drivers than if they were in the same position on an upright bike.
Which is something worth having.
Following feedback from a friend, I'll put another post up about the relative psychology of riders and how this impacts on safety; watch this space.
(I know there's a lot that's over simplified & under-explained, I was trying to make it readable: please ask if you want clarification. I'm confident in the theory & stake my life on it most days, so feel free to ask for explanation/clarification)
*Edit, there is a follow up post here*
Friday 7 September 2012
Velomobile pics
Ok, I've neglected this for a while. There's an interesting post in process, but in the interim, here's some pics of my Milan that's being picked up next weekend....
Friday 1 June 2012
Why ride a recumbent?
This is a question that is asked an
awful lot and, in common with many other simple questions, doesn’t
have a simple answer, but a complex and multifactorial one. Most of
us who ride recumbents have a quick answer since (IME) you get asked
the question so frequently that answering it fully becomes tiresome.
I wanted to take the time to answer more fully and in a more detailed
manner. Then I don’t need to ever do this again…..
How did it start?
I had had a fairly nasty crash on
losing the back wheel of my upright in a 20mph corner. I was in a
stookie for 6 weeks and starting to go a little stir-crazy at the
enforced not-cycling-ness. Me being me, I started moaning about this
on an online forum and someone suggested trying out a recumbent. I
tried, bought, loved and bought more recumbents. It should be added
that I was left with a little osteo-arthritis in my left wrist after
the break, so for a few years, riding an upright was impossible. It
is now possible, but becomes very painful on rough roads. The
re-training of muscles takes a decent amount of time when
transferring to ‘bents: the first 3 months have marked improvements
and decent progress is easily made; but, as with many other things,
it is the last 10% that is hardest. The second three months on a
recumbent, I found very hard: I was on a far heavier bike with
reduced power and am a bad climber anyway so hills caused me
headaches. Getting that last little bit that changed hills from
painful to alright was a drawn out process. It is worth being aware
of this in advance if you are planning to completely switch over. I
would find the switch a lot easier now since I am cycling a lot less,
so have less power to transfer and am less-used to being able to
climb, but I was cycling around 200 miles a week at the time of some
lumpy roads, so was fairly fit and strong.
Why do I continue?
So that’s the ups and downs of
starting with its reasons contained. I now do over 90% of my mileage
on recumbents and only really use my road bike if I have to. My
preference is for recumbents without question. Let me break down the
reasons that, for me, constitute the basis of the preference.
Comfort. Upright cycling distributes
weight across three different areas: feet, wrists and sit bones. It
also requires maintaining a fairly difficult position if you want to
reduce drag. I completed my first 100 miles in a day ride on an
upright & it is fair to say that almost everything hurt
afterwards. I had sore feet, extremely sore wrists, tired arms, an
uncomfortable back and my neck was in agony. This was all in
addition to the very tired legs that I had. When I have managed
similar distances on a recumbent, I have finished with only sore
legs. On occasion, my neck has been a little sore too. To be fair,
some people find that the neck position is very sore to maintain, so
they buy neck rests. I find that unnecessary, but can understand the
reasons. The neck-soreness is far less on my Fujin (with a very
reclined position and, therefore, a sharp angle to keep the head in
the correct position) than it is on my road bike, but is an issue
worth being open about. The reasons for this reduced soreness are
that the weight is far more widely distributed and the position
doesn’t need muscle tension to hold. Furthermore, rear suspension
is frequently built into the frames, which can be achieved fairly
easily without robbing power from the pedal stroke. In addition to
this, the seats are normally padded in some way. There is a huge
spectrum of comfort from a full suspension, wide-tyred, soft-seated
touring machines through to the full-on race bikes, but if you
compare the least comfortable recumbent to the most comfortable
upright, the ‘bent wins hands down. Comparing like with like is
not a task worth engaging in, the difference is night and day.
Aerodynamics. Anyone who has seen
adverts in the cycling press for road bikes will be aware that this
is a big issue. Fewer people understand why and how. I’m going to
go through some approximated and simplified bicycle mathematics to
explain this a little further. On the flat, speed is roughly the
product of power versus drag. Drag rises as a cubic of speed
relative to wind direction. What that means in practice is a
doubling of speed requires eight times more power to overcome the
resultant drag. In cars, what has happened is that the focus has
been largely on more powerful engines to overcome drag. With human
powered vehicles, there is a biological limit to maximum power and
the engine is stuck at something around half a horsepower. This
means to make a significant difference to maximum speed, you have to
change the amount of drag (or, more accurately, the CdA): you have to
make it more aerodynamic. Recumbents are typically 25-33% more
aerodynamic than their upright cousins and velomobiles save far more
again. You can see from the earlier formulations that this saving
will quickly become huge at speed. In practical terms, this means I
can go a lot faster for the same power, or the same speed for a lot
further. Until the road heads up and the physics become power versus
weight and drag becomes less significant. In a flat, windy country
like the Netherlands, the advantage of recumbents is huge. I stay in
a hilly and windy area so this advantage is certainly reduced, but I
still find that there is a significant advantage: I’m quicker over
a given route. As another simple comparison, the land speed record
for a recumbent is 83.66mph and the fastest speed ever recorded in
the TdF is 72mph. The former speed was recorded by a part-time
athlete on the flat. The latter was recorded by an elite athlete
descending a mountain. That is to say that with every conceivable
advantage (a far better engine and a several mile long downhill), the
upright still cannot get close to a recumbent. Comparing like-for
like….
Once again, the difference on the flat
and downhill is night and day.
It is worth mentioning weight, however,
when discussing the relative speed of different machines. Recumbents
tend to weigh more than upright bikes when compared like for like.
There are two main reasons for this: the manufacturing runs are
shorter and the chains are longer. Being a small market means that
the budget for R&D is going to be significantly smaller than for
uprights. Some of these budgets could be spent on things like novel
use of exotic materials, but the money is unavailable. Consequently,
there is something of a block in making very lightweight bikes. The
other issue is the chain. On a RWD bent, the chain will be roughly
3* as long & therefore weigh 3* as much. That really starts to
add up in what is a fairly heavy component. That all said, there are
some fairly lightweight bikes available just now & almost
certainly more to follow. 6-7kg is certainly achievable if you have
the budget!
Safety. I am being serious here! Most
people tend to ask if it’s dangerous to ride when they see me on a
‘bent and for the life of me I can’t work out why they would
think it is. I have a theory around height and power and perceived
safety, but the question is irrational and absurd. The first part is
that you get given space when on a ‘bent that you don’t when on
an upright. For the most part, Glasgow’s drivers are fairly good
with cyclists (this is a relatively term, so perhaps should read less
awful than many others), but on an upright, I am normally within
touching distance of about half the cars that pass me in urban areas.
This figure drops to well below 10% on a ‘bent bike and virtually
0% on a trike. In fact, on the trike, very few things get within 2
metres of me when passing. There are reasons for this, but all the
same, the risk of accidental impact is hugely reduced. My other huge
bugbear when riding an upright in traffic is that many drivers simply
assume speed based on type of vehicle and don’t check. Many
drivers see me on a bike and manoeuvre in such a way that indicates
they think I’m doing about 10mph: which gets quite scary if you’re
doing 25-30mph down a hill. I can only think of 2-3 occasions where
a driver has pulled out on me in this way in many thousand miles of
‘bent bike riding and it happened twice on my 8 miles commute home
last time I rode an upright. People worry about visibility too, but
I find that visibility is a function of behaviour not size. Good
road craft makes you visible, not being big. The only time it is an
issue is approaching a t-junction where it is heavily parked, but
leaning forward and inching forward until you can see you are clear
tends to work.
The second aspect to the safety issue
is the nature of the design and there are again two component parts
to this. The first is the feet-first rather than head-first
position. Whilst my advice would always be to avoid impacts in the
first place, if you are going to have one, I’m guessing you’d
prefer to hit feet first than head first. When I’ve not ridden an
upright for a while & get on one, this aspect becomes terrifying
clear when heading down a hill. Head-first with a centre of gravity
above the wheels makes braking behaviour difficult and scares the
hell out of me. Feet first with the centre of gravity behind the
front wheel means that I can pull on the brake as hard as I like
without risking of flipping & inspires a lot more confidence.
The other aspect is that I’m closer
to the ground if I crash. This might not sound too great, but think
it through. I’ve had two 30mph+ crashes from a recumbent (the
first was down to my incompetence (trying to take a corner too fast)
and the second due to a front tyre blow out whilst cornering) and I
walked away from both with merely road rash and bruising. Don’t
get me wrong, it hurts (a lot), but it heals fairly quickly and
rarely requires medical intervention. I’ve only managed one crash
at decent speed from an upright and broke my wrist (even though I was
going a lot slower). So far this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc
argument, but the key lies in the mechanism. If you go down on a
‘bent, you’re on the ground before you can react, you slide
(removing skin, normally from the buttocks), then you stop. There is
no significant impact. From an upright, you tend to get an arm down.
Which tends to break. There is a significant impact. IME, you get
the road rash too, but that tends to hurt less from an upright crash,
but that might be the broken bones distracting you.
In summary then: comfier, faster/more
efficient and safer. The question, it appears, is not “why do you
ride a ‘bent?” but “why on earth would you not ride a ‘bent?”
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Velomobile Reviews
I'd scribbled this up after riding a Go-One Evo, a Milan and a Quest at www.velomobiles.de (which I recommend very highly). I thought it would be worth a re-post, but is a year old, so won't be able to answer too many detailed questions....
I should clarify that this was based on about 15 mins in each machine, so is simply impressionistic and by no means to be relied on.
I should clarify that this was based on about 15 mins in each machine, so is simply impressionistic and by no means to be relied on.
Go-One Evo
Really nice looking vehicle with some lovely touches. It looks very big,
but was actually very tight for space inside & there is very little height
where the pedals are. I didn’t have a functioning speedo whilst riding this
machine, but it felt in the middle of the the three speed-wise. The fan in the
nose was a really nice touch for keeping it cool & the large amount of clear
cover made it feel very open. Really limited luggage space, but what there was
was very well organised.
Quest
Comfortably the slowest of the three for me, but easily the most practical. I
personally, really disliked it, but can see its appeal. As Elmar said, it’s the
only velo you can do your weekly shopping in, then take out & race. I found
it quite uncomfortable for my body shape & more difficult to get in and out
of, but that’s almost certainly about me rather than the machine. It has very
soft suspension at the front, which led to side-to-side rocking under power,
which, when added to the 7cm gap on either side between my shoulders & the
edge of the entrance hatch, left me feeling seasick & as if a lot of my
power was going into rocking the machine side-to-side rather than moving
forward. Loads of room inside for stuff & loads of roof/hatch options. The
best all-round choice, by far. But not really for me.
(Edit: there is (and was) padding available to stop the shoulder rocking issue to some degree).
Milan
Insanely fast: I was not going flat out (I was unaccompanied &
struggling to work out German traffic law/custom, let alone which side of the
road to ride on), so backed off a lot, but comfortably held 52km/h on the flat
& topped 64km/h on 100m of 1 (ish) % downhill. Quite claustrophobic inside
(it feels tiny compared to the other two), but actually not a bad space inside.
Having the hatch touch one’s head as it closes it quite scary, but there was
quite a lot more space than in the Evo. “Panzer” steering (bit like USS, rather
than tiller) made getting in and out a lot easier & felt more instinctive to
control, not to mention made braking a lot easier. This also meant that it was
the only machine with separate left/right brake controls, which would prob mean
the tiller steering is (strictly speaking) illegal in the UK. For me, the
easiest to enter/exit & most comfortable position inside. Will get very
warm in summer inside.
Comfortably my favourite machine of the three. It struck me that the
Quest/Milan difference is the same as the Fuego/Fujin: both are quite similar
overall, but one is very practical, the other trades some practicality for
speed. My preference, then, is probably no surprise!
Overall impressions were that they didn’t feel like bikes or trikes at
all. Being inside something feels quite different. Turning circle wasn’t a
problem at all, if you compare them to cars, rather than bikes or trikes. I
felt quite comfortable cornering at speed, but that’s prob as much about the
huge turning circle than stability! Tiller steering was quite uncomfortable
(the tiller rotates rather than swings) & the brake wasn’t under one’s
fingers, so I really didn’t like that. Riding on cambered roads was far worse
than on a trike, but I imagine you’d get used to that quite quickly. Riding at
52km/h on a cambered road took some real concentration, though.
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Challenge Fujin SLII review
Before
I start, a brief caveat: mine is over 4 years old, so there may be
differences in spec now. The tiller is slightly newer, however, and
was fitted for reasons that have nothing to do with this review…
I’m
sure that your friendly, local Challenge dealer will be happy to
advise you about current specs and older versions.
So,
my SLII. Here’s the pic:
I
think that this is one of the best looking recumbents out there.
Challenge always design decent-looking bikes, however, this one goes
a bit beyond. Most of us who ride recumbents have or have had
something that looks a bit agricultural. This machine is quite happy
sitting next to carbon road bikes, however, and really does attract
attention.
Mine
is specced with and 11-34t cassette and a 30-39-53t chainwheel. It
has a 650c rear wheel and a 20”/406 ETRO front wheel. The rear
wheel has 28 spokes. The front was rebuilt with 32 spokes in a cross
3 pattern due to me breaking quite a few of the original ones! It
used to have Schwalbe Stelvio tyres on, but it now wears a 28mm
Durano at the front and a 23mm Ultremo ZX at the back. I have
noticed that Schwalbe have started making the Ultremo ZX in 406-23mm,
but I have yet to get enough miles into this tyre combo to know
whether the Ultremo is durable enough to trust on the front on
Glasgow roads, but I will look to move in this direction if it is.
The Ultremo/Durano tyre package is an improvement on the Stelvios,
which I had no great love for. It’s not a night and day change,
but the new tyres seem both more comfortable and faster.
I
got my Fujin having had a Nazca Fuego for some time and having tried
a variety of machines out. I wanted something very much the
recumbent version of a road bike: speed being the main priority, with
very few concessions made. The Fujin is very much in this mold: no
racks, no mudguards, no suspension, no light mount and narrow tyres.
I was both excited and anxious when I first rode it, since I had got
used to some of these concessions and even got to like some of them
(the Fuego was the first bike I ever owned with a rack, with tyres
wider than 23mm, or with suspension: the rack and suspension were
great and I was getting used to the wider tyres). Furthermore, I was
worried how twitchy and difficult to handle it was going to be.
I
picked my Fujin up in Edinburgh and went for a ride with David who
had got the bike for me (& who had stayed polite through my
endless queries about different bikes and different specs on these
bikes). Our initial ride was to Cramond, then back into town so I
could get the train home. I was quite looking forward to bike paths,
since I was anticipating really struggling to control the bike at
first. I really need not have worried. It is
more twitchy than the Fuego, but not in an unpredictable way. It
took me about 400m to get used to the differences in handling, so not
that difficult. I find the handling quite difficult to describe:
normally manoeuvrability comes from instability and most
quick-turning bikes that I’ve ridden will give you a few scares
until you are used to them. The Fujin turns very quickly & I
knew immediately that it needed treated with respect, however, I
can’t remember it giving many scares at all. It tells you quite
quickly if you’re doing something wrong & you seem to have
loads of time to correct it. Not at all like a road bike in that
regard. Within a month of owning it, I had it going at 50+mph
through a fairly gravelly turn without blinking. That isn’t a bike
that’s hard to handle!
Saying
that, I would not recommend it as a first recumbent necessarily, but
with basic competence on a ‘bent, you’d probably be fine.
The
other issue that a beginner would have on this bike is dealing with
the speed. It is unbelievably fast. I have never ridden anything
that even compares. Given that I’m rarely at full fitness, that it
is immensely complimentary of its rider is very much appreciated. I
still don’t like steep downhills on it since the speed racks up far
too quickly for comfort, but on the flat getting up to 30mph isn’t
too difficult and holding it for a few minutes is OK at a push too.
There’s no fear in traffic when you can manage those speeds.
Speed
on the hills is also good. Mine is about 8kg, so a wee bit above the
UCI weight limit (it might fail UCI rules for other reasons though),
but light enough to make big hills a lot more possible. Mine is
fitted with a triple chainring & I have never used the granny
ring. To be fair, I did need it once when I was blowing badly on a
hill and a ramp topped 20%, but when I tried to get it, I found that
the indexing was out & I couldn’t get onto the granny ring. I
was fine to carry on in 39-34 on a 650c wheel, but had to grind a
fair bit. I am not a climber (I’m far too big and heavy) and I
stay somewhere with lots of big hills & I have only once needed
the granny ring. That should really say everything you need to know
about this bike’s climbing ability.
So,
then, the bike is fast, it climbs well and handles brilliantly. Is
there anything not to like? For me, no, but there are some wee
niggles. For others these niggles would be deal breakers, but that’s
probably taste.
Luggage
capacity is useless. I use Radical Designs 2*7l bags & plan my
days around not carrying much. I insist that all my bikes work as
commuters & the Fujin only just qualifies on this count. Saying
that, quite why you’d buy this bike to carry luggage on is a
different question. &, if you really wanted to for some odd
reason, you could always get a Novosport tailbox & get improved
aerodynamics and c.40l luggage space.
The
rear brake is pointless; I’d take mine off if it wasn’t a legal
requirement. I really wouldn’t want a good back brake though (with
the weight distribution, you’d lock the back wheel far too easily &
I wouldn’t like to try power sliding this bike), it’s just that I
object to carrying round a pointless brake. Even if I wouldn’t
notice the difference if it were taken off. (The brake weighs nearly
nothing). So there’s a rear brake that weighs almost nothing and
doesn’t really work, but you wouldn’t want it to. Not really a
huge problem….
Fragility.
This is my summer bike & it rarely even take it out in the rain.
This is partly because I’m scared that it’ll melt or dissolve
and partly because I like to keep it shiny. To be fair, it is to be
treated as you would treat a mid to high end road bike. It isn’t
something you’d want to handle rough stuff on, but it will handle
Glasgow roads fairly well & I’ve seen flatter mountain bike
tracks than some of the local roads I commute on. I think it’s a
lot more robust than I fear it might be, but really don’t want to
find out.
I
think that’s about it….
This bike does what it is designed to do incredibly well. It is quite a specialist tool, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you want a generalist bike, of course. The final thing that should be considered is the thing that swung it for me: it is just so much fun to ride. Folk who know me will know that I'm not the most demonstrative person. I made a large whooping noise first time I accelerated this bike out of a corner.
Yep, it is that much fun to ride...
Saturday 5 May 2012
Random thoughts over a few days of commuting
Fast Bike, Slow Bike
I’ve always assumed the answer to
this question: the slow bike gets you fit & you use the fitness
on the fast one. Coming into work this morning, I started to doubt
whether this was actually a sensible approach; or indeed, if there
was any truth at all in it. Let me explain.
I spent a chunk of a few weeks earlier
this year commuting to work by bike/trike. I always struggle for
motivation during the cooler, wetter months (which are about 9/12 up
here!), so was making the effort during February to get some base
mileage in. Knowing the effect of Glasgow road-salt on chains and
transmissions, I was taking the trike, which is running Sora
components, which are less expensive to replace.
On a good day, the commute was quite
good fun; moving reasonably quickly and not having to suffer the bus.
Less good days, however, meant that I really struggled to keep up
with the motivation. Other than not having mud-guards on the front
wheels (which makes cornering in the wet quite unpleasant (but is
better if you fancy arriving home like an extra from 60’s
Paris-Roubaix photos)), there was the pain of lugging 20+kg of bike
and luggage up c.150m of ascent in heavy traffic. Being cold and
wet and struggling for power & having to overcome gravity was a
situation that I’d always assumed to be helpful, in that, if I had
the power to get the trike uphills in the rain, then the summer bike
should fly come, well, summer. This theory seems relatively sound
from a fitness perspective, however, a new piece of information came
to light this morning that has changed the way I looked at things.
First commute on the summer bike this
morning. About 8kg of rather lovely bike, with a 15mph tailwind and
a predominately downhill route was the position this morning & I
flew. I am hideously undercooked after a winter of more off than on
cycling, but I was turning a 53-15 gear above 90rpm on the slight
(1-2%) uphill about a mile from home (OK, I had come off a similar
downhill, so this won’t be reliable for power calculations, but is
reasonably indicative (oh, there’s also a 650c wheel on the back
rather than a 700c, which makes quite a difference in resultant
speed)). The decent downhills were less fun since drivers insisted
on making me slow down, but the difference struck me as I parked up
somewhat breathlessly with a big grin & made me re-consider my
previous position about winter commuting.
The difference was that I had really
enjoyed the commute and had gone really deep just for fun. & it
didn’t really hurt when I went into the red. I was quite unaware
of my legs hurting and my breathlessness. I was completely focused
on my surroundings and this huge feeling of happiness. I haven’t
had that simple joy of moving a machine quickly for a long time &
now just want it again and again and again. This is completely
different from my late winter commutes when I really had to force
myself not to take the bus. The bottom line is that I really don’t
enjoy cold, wet, miserable rides uphill on a heavy machine anymore.
I used to be a bit more zen about it, but I guess that I’m getting
old or lazy or nesh about it now. I was asked if I was turning into
a fair-weather cyclist this morning (a breed for whom I have always
had great contempt) & realised that I was (so, apologies to any
fair-weather cyclists I may have offended!). Don’t get me wrong, I
was cold this morning (& had to wear sandals at c.8°C,
but that’s a different story), but I didn’t really care: I could
always get warm by cycling harder; or harder still!
So the questions… How much of my
current attitude is based in the knowledge that I have a velomobile
in the post and will, hopefully, spend next winter’s commutes
safely cocooned from the rain? & how much of today’s speed is
from those winter commutes? & how much fun will I have the next
time I get to pedal home uphill into the wind after burning all my
glycogen concentrating at work all day? How will I feel on the big
climb on day 3 of commuting (I need to get the bus after this to
transport things, so this is just a 3 day commuting week), normally,
that makes me hurt, so to be successful, the light bike idea means
that I need to not-hate day 3-4 climb on way home with tired muscles
and tired mind.
I’m looking forward now to my next
commute and really not caring about these questions at all….
Further thoughts
Day 3 is where it counts.
Having written the above
piece 48 hours ago, the theory is coming to be tested. I have a 8
mile commute that’s quite rolling, other than the huge climb on the
way home/downhill on the way in. Home into a headwind and up that
hill were not un-fun on the past two evenings &, although I was
quite quick coming in today, I can feel that my legs aren’t putting
out the same power & there’s a slight achy burn when I start to
push hard.
So the hypothesis needs
tested. If the light bike’s better, I need to have done more in
the same time and/or enjoyed even when suffering.
Well, I’ve done 3 and 4
days of commuting in a week on the trike several times this year. I
should be fitter and stronger just now than when I last undertook
such a thing. My legs are telling me that I have done an awful lot
more than I have done in one of those 4 day commuting weeks. Whilst
impression or feelings are not really to be relied upon when testing
work done, there has been an alarming and concurrent drop off in top
end power available that has run in proportion to the sense of work
done. This drop-off is clearly quite a lot larger than trike
commuting caused if my ability to get up 6 flights of stairs to my
office is anything to go by (I had decided that I was going to take
the lift for a change this morning, given the state my legs were in,
but then saw the big “Do not use” signs & got quite grumpy).
So, it appears that I
go/have gone a lot deeper than I have done in comparable situations
on the trike, but have I enjoyed it? Yes, but no, but… Let me
explain…
I always hate working hard
to get back to a standard that I used to have: I find it frustrating
& unsatisfying; so I’ve been very grumpy whilst riding this
week since I just don’t have the power. Saying that, I’ve
actually had quite a lot of fun whilst I haven’t been being grumpy.
What I haven’t had, most importantly is a situation where pain and
frustration outweigh the fun, which was something all too frequent on
the trike. Tonight, however, is a different proposition: the wind is
still blowing the wrong way, so I have a headwind going uphill whilst
tired….
& the next day
But it was fun. I’m
heavy-legged, but happy. I’ve had to get the bus today to
transport some things & am feeling remarkably good…
Lessons learned then:
- That the trike is functional and useful; great fun to ride on the flat, but painfully slow on hills. It’ll be fine to use when I’m stronger/fitter, but just now, prob best left in its cupboard for a few weeks (which is probably for the best since, for a variety of reasons, it has no pedals & there’ll be none available for a week or two);
- That I find getting back to cycling far easier on lighter/quicker machines;
- That I work harder on a lighter bike. That is to say that I appear to get more benefit from riding something with less drag and rolling resistance. So, whilst I could go at the same speed and use less energy, I tend to use use more energy than I would on the trike in the same circumstances.
- All of the above means that the quicker machine gets me fit faster, gets me to work faster and gives me a lot more enjoyment in the process.
- That all of the above would be irrelevant is I could avoid long gaps in cycling: fingers crossed for something approaching summer this year then and that the VM means that winter cycling is less painful….
Are fat tyres bad?
Rigid bikes are great: they go faster
and are lighter; both of which are traits I really like in bikes
(well, in HPVs in general, but that doesn’t quite work as well).
If anyone has had the recent misfortune to commute on Glasgow roads,
you’ll probably know what’s coming, but I was struck today with
how much crappy roads are slowing me down.
After 7-8 miles of crater dodging &
loosening all the bolts and screws on my Fujin, I turn onto
Baird/Kyle Street (it changes from one to the other somewhere, but
I’m never sure where). Approaching from the Royston end, you have
a ramp down, followed by a very, very slight downhill. What makes
this bit different and worthy of comment, however, is that it has
been recently resurfaced. There are similar sections of road in
profile, but I am so much quicker on this bit. This morning, I was
holding a 53-11 gear at 90(ish) rpm without too much difficulty. In
concrete terms, that’s over 10% faster than a similar bit that’s
a bit lumpier. I also don’t object to not being shaken constantly,
but the speed is more the issue.
I am actually shocked by
the difference. >10% faster for the same power input is fairly
appreciable. I know that this is a one-off sample & there are
other factors at play too, but let’s run with that number for now.
I recently swapped the Vittoria Open Corsa CX tyres on my road bike
out for 28mm Schwalbe Marathon Supremes. This took quite a lot of
commitment & a good deal of prodding (& the realisation that
I was going to have to cycle downhill on grass and didn’t want to
die on road tyres that skidded at the sight of damp greenery). After
nightmares about how slow I was going to be, I was pleasantly
surprised at how little difference they made. I now realise that
this was probably in no small part down to running fatter tyres at
lower pressure with the resultant drop in bouncing on bumpy roads.
I have, however, noticed
that Schwalbe now make the Ultremo ZX in 23-406, so I can get a
full-on road tyre for the front wheel of my Fujin. Does the above
put me off?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
Narrow, high pressure
tyres are so much faster, even when they are objectively slower and
puncture more frequently. Right?
Tuesday 1 May 2012
ICE Vortex at POP
On Saturday, I attended the wonderful Pedal on Parliament demo in Edinburgh. Fantastic weather, over 3,000 cyclists and a fair smattering of folk on recumbents, so a decent day all in.
David at Laid Back Bikes had kindly offered to let me ride the Vortex on the day in order to save me taking my bike on overcrowded trains (& knowing that I had serious trike envy having seen the photos on his facebook page).
Details of the Vortex can be found here. I'd been hugely excited by the marketing before the initial launch of the Vortex; especially the reference to the 11.5kg Monster trike. When the initial model came out it was disappointingly heavy and fairly pricey IIRC.
Those two points seem resolved now (although, the Vortex+ is eye-wateringly costly), with the base model weighing less than 15kg and c£2,800. This is by no means cheap, but seems par for the course, if not fairly good value for the specs offered.
So I got to spend a few hours with the Vortex, albeit most of it stationary and a chunk more at c.5mph. I did get to stretch my legs on a decent climb and do a bit of urban riding & a lump of the slow section was on the cobbles of the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, so I think I got a decent feel for the machine.
Initial impressions then, the trike is certainly has a very striking design & (whisper it) the white paint job really suits it. This is the first ICE tike that I think actually looks good. That seat is also visually well-designed. The whole thing looks like it goes fast, which is a fairly difficult job with a trike. The trike is a little less resilient than some other & care is needed not straining the bars entering the cockpit, but that's not terribly difficult to manage....
The position when seated is pretty comfortable. Some of this is going to be quite subjective, but there was nothing obviously wrong. For comparison, the bars are a wee bit further away than on the Greenspeed X5, which is my normal ride. The seat rises and the front, so you're pretty securely held in position. I'm not really used to this & it took time for me to get a comfortable position, but I can't see that it's anything but not being used to the seat.
After quite a lot of waiting around in the Meadows, we started off fairly slowly. It was at this point that I realised that we were about to ride the cobbles of the Royal Mile with me on a trike without suspension and with 3 high pressure tyres. With some trepidation, we swung right onto the cobbles, but I needn't have worried. Something (I presume it was the padding on the seat) soaked up the vibration fairly well. I was far more comfortable with the Vortex than I would have been on my X5 (with its big old deck chair seat and Kojak tyres). To be fair, I wouldn't have wanted to go much faster, but it wasn't bad at all. That's some achievement!
Making my way back to Marchmont from Holyrood, I got to open the taps a little. First up the climb out of the park to the Commonwealth pool. This isn't the biggest climb in history, but big enough when you're not in the best shape and being followed by someone who can climb. The Vortex had given me the impression that it wanted to go faster & responded well to being kicked on. Very easy to climb in for a 14.5kg machine. I would have guessed it was lighter from the way it responded, but this may have been low rolling resistance from the racing tyres. Steering is quite twitchy/light, which I found quite difficult under power going up hills, but, again, I would think that this is a case of getting used to it. As we started to descend & take the roundabouts, the Vortex really came into its own. The seat makes it very easy to get forward and lean in fast corners, despite its very laid back angle. It cornered very, very well and just went where it was pointed without complaint. It was very confidence-inspiring in corners. It wasn't my machine, so I didn't push it, but I wouldn't have worried about very fast cornering, where I would on other machines. Coming back through the traffic, my riding partner who was on a disc-braked Fuego was quite surprised (& perhaps alarmed) at how quickly the Vortex stopped. Another plus mark to the Vortex, but a black mark for my group riding skills (sorry, Rob!). Two things are worth noting that I didn't like: the low bottom bracket height is odd & led to lots of heel strike (I have large feet, so worse in my case) & would take some getting used to; and the 50t outer chainring. OK the overall range is sensible at 22.5"-122.7", but I can't help thinking that another 3-4 teeth would be worth it on downhills on a machine this quick...
In summary then, the Vortex is a stunning piece of kit. Adaptable (it takes a rack & with some Marathon Supremes would make a superb commuter/tourer, or in standard spec a fast commuter/sheer fun bike), practical and really "dialled-in" with its handling. If I were in the market for another trike, the Vortex would be at the top of my shortlist. Unfortunately, I'm not, so will have to make do with this ride until I sell the X5 & can persuade my other half that I really, really need a replacement trike...
David at Laid Back Bikes had kindly offered to let me ride the Vortex on the day in order to save me taking my bike on overcrowded trains (& knowing that I had serious trike envy having seen the photos on his facebook page).
Details of the Vortex can be found here. I'd been hugely excited by the marketing before the initial launch of the Vortex; especially the reference to the 11.5kg Monster trike. When the initial model came out it was disappointingly heavy and fairly pricey IIRC.
Those two points seem resolved now (although, the Vortex+ is eye-wateringly costly), with the base model weighing less than 15kg and c£2,800. This is by no means cheap, but seems par for the course, if not fairly good value for the specs offered.
So I got to spend a few hours with the Vortex, albeit most of it stationary and a chunk more at c.5mph. I did get to stretch my legs on a decent climb and do a bit of urban riding & a lump of the slow section was on the cobbles of the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, so I think I got a decent feel for the machine.
Initial impressions then, the trike is certainly has a very striking design & (whisper it) the white paint job really suits it. This is the first ICE tike that I think actually looks good. That seat is also visually well-designed. The whole thing looks like it goes fast, which is a fairly difficult job with a trike. The trike is a little less resilient than some other & care is needed not straining the bars entering the cockpit, but that's not terribly difficult to manage....
The position when seated is pretty comfortable. Some of this is going to be quite subjective, but there was nothing obviously wrong. For comparison, the bars are a wee bit further away than on the Greenspeed X5, which is my normal ride. The seat rises and the front, so you're pretty securely held in position. I'm not really used to this & it took time for me to get a comfortable position, but I can't see that it's anything but not being used to the seat.
After quite a lot of waiting around in the Meadows, we started off fairly slowly. It was at this point that I realised that we were about to ride the cobbles of the Royal Mile with me on a trike without suspension and with 3 high pressure tyres. With some trepidation, we swung right onto the cobbles, but I needn't have worried. Something (I presume it was the padding on the seat) soaked up the vibration fairly well. I was far more comfortable with the Vortex than I would have been on my X5 (with its big old deck chair seat and Kojak tyres). To be fair, I wouldn't have wanted to go much faster, but it wasn't bad at all. That's some achievement!
Making my way back to Marchmont from Holyrood, I got to open the taps a little. First up the climb out of the park to the Commonwealth pool. This isn't the biggest climb in history, but big enough when you're not in the best shape and being followed by someone who can climb. The Vortex had given me the impression that it wanted to go faster & responded well to being kicked on. Very easy to climb in for a 14.5kg machine. I would have guessed it was lighter from the way it responded, but this may have been low rolling resistance from the racing tyres. Steering is quite twitchy/light, which I found quite difficult under power going up hills, but, again, I would think that this is a case of getting used to it. As we started to descend & take the roundabouts, the Vortex really came into its own. The seat makes it very easy to get forward and lean in fast corners, despite its very laid back angle. It cornered very, very well and just went where it was pointed without complaint. It was very confidence-inspiring in corners. It wasn't my machine, so I didn't push it, but I wouldn't have worried about very fast cornering, where I would on other machines. Coming back through the traffic, my riding partner who was on a disc-braked Fuego was quite surprised (& perhaps alarmed) at how quickly the Vortex stopped. Another plus mark to the Vortex, but a black mark for my group riding skills (sorry, Rob!). Two things are worth noting that I didn't like: the low bottom bracket height is odd & led to lots of heel strike (I have large feet, so worse in my case) & would take some getting used to; and the 50t outer chainring. OK the overall range is sensible at 22.5"-122.7", but I can't help thinking that another 3-4 teeth would be worth it on downhills on a machine this quick...
In summary then, the Vortex is a stunning piece of kit. Adaptable (it takes a rack & with some Marathon Supremes would make a superb commuter/tourer, or in standard spec a fast commuter/sheer fun bike), practical and really "dialled-in" with its handling. If I were in the market for another trike, the Vortex would be at the top of my shortlist. Unfortunately, I'm not, so will have to make do with this ride until I sell the X5 & can persuade my other half that I really, really need a replacement trike...
Saturday 28 April 2012
Re-Purposing my blog
This blog has lain dormant for some significant time now. I had some great plans, but they were undone by reality's cruelty. I've had an awful couple of years, but things seem to be bottoming out...
So now's the time to verb-ise a created noun & get back to something I love: cycling.
I have a fairly wide variety of human powered vehicles & some more are on their way. I am going to use this space to post some experiential stuff about the various machines that I've ridden.
That's all for now......
So now's the time to verb-ise a created noun & get back to something I love: cycling.
I have a fairly wide variety of human powered vehicles & some more are on their way. I am going to use this space to post some experiential stuff about the various machines that I've ridden.
That's all for now......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)