Advocacy & Safety - Is it a bike?

http://www.elliptigo.com/product/

Saw one of these yesterday, and got to wondering how well they work. I talked to the rider and she assured me that they climb well. The frame was made of aluminum and CF. I was quite surprised by how light it was and the quality of the build.

I'm going to test ride one the first chance I get.

Treadle propelled bikes have been around since the invention of the bicycle, and they quickly became extinct. I think its an overcomplication of the very efficient and simple bicycle design, but to each his own. It is a cool design, however.

Treadle propelled bikes have been around since the invention of the bicycle, and they quickly became extinct. I think its an overcomplication of the very efficient and simple bicycle design, but to each his own. It is a cool design, however.

I think the gearing system on this design makes it unique... I recall seeing other treadle bikes that used direct drive to the wheels and thus were "fixies" of sorts. This was the first such device I have seen with both a gearing system and adjustable stride.

Anything previously was more akin to something like this:

http://www.in.gov/history/images/bicycle.gif

Treadle propelled bikes have been around since the invention of the bicycle, and they quickly became extinct. I think its an overcomplication of the very efficient and simple bicycle design, but to each his own. It is a cool design, however.


This one isn't designed to improve or replace the bicycle. It's a mobile elliptical trainer. As a runner, I want one because the workout is more specific to running muscles than a bicycle is. The $2,100 price tag is the only thing stopping me.

This one isn't designed to improve or replace the bicycle. It's a mobile elliptical trainer. As a runner, I want one because the workout is more specific to running muscles than a bicycle is. The $2,100 price tag is the only thing stopping me.

Yeah, that did seem high... until I realized how well it was made. You would pay the same for a quality high end bike. (I know I have...) The components were carbon fiber and aluminum, and it was surprisingly very light.

Note, I am not connected with this thing in any way... I just saw one in use and talked to the "rider." It just looked interesting to me.

I recall seeing some form of this thing on the local college campus many years ago... and thinking it a lark at the time... perhaps it was the prototype to this "bike."

The first drawbacks I considered were hill climbing (which apparently it does well), the possibility to be thrown off the device when braking hard (due to high center of gravity for the rider) and the lack of ability to carry anything (no place for panniers... a comment which the rider conceded). I also have to wonder about the direct stress on the knees.

But damn, it looks like fun... :D

Of course, there is always the more traditional elliptical-type drive found on ingo bikes (Once used on a Three Stooges movie). Peter Wagner makes them and calls them Whymcycles. Basically, they are scooters with the rear hub set off-center in a 24 inch (or larger) wheel. As the wheel goes around the rear end goes up and down. You approximate gearing by moving forward or rearward on the deck. They are quite fun, but they are not bikes, legally anyway. Gotta have a seat and pedals to be a bike. It would be pretty tough to maintain 20 mph on one, but 10-15 is doable and anything over about 4% grade will be a tough climb. Google Whymcycles for pictures or just go to Burning Man or any Kinetic Sculpture race on the West Coast and you will see some. He makes them from discarded bikes (a recycled non-cycle) and sells them pretty cheap. My family always thought of them as a means of low-impact running.

$2,100 isn't high. You can easily spend that on a decent stationary elliptical trainer.

It's not gonna look as ridiculous as a trike, I think. Don't think it interests me, but it's a cool idea.

$2,100 isn't high. You can easily spend that on a decent stationary elliptical trainer.

It's not gonna look as ridiculous as a trike, I think. Don't think it interests me, but it's a cool idea.

Trike??? Where did you get that idea???

This one isn't designed to improve or replace the bicycle. It's a mobile elliptical trainer. As a runner, I want one because the workout is more specific to running muscles than a bicycle is. The $2,100 price tag is the only thing stopping me.

My first thought was that aside from gimic aspects the only thing it was good for was training for a runner with impact injuries. Guess it is also good for preventing the same.

This one isn't designed to improve or replace the bicycle. It's a mobile elliptical trainer. As a runner, I want one because the workout is more specific to running muscles than a bicycle is.

Is anyone else here thinking "So *that's* what TV's Frank is doing these days.. "?

http://steve-edwards.blogspot.com/2010/03/indoor-vs-outdoor-training.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV%27s_Frank

I saw one of these at the maker faire a couple of years ago........ they look cool....they have a swoopy almost, skiing look in action

Is anyone else here thinking "So *that's* what TV's Frank is doing these days.. "?

Even with the wiki link I'm not seeing the point and feel like I might be missing a good joke.

I'm guessing from the blog link that you are saying that running is the best training for running? I would agree to an extent. On the off days from running however, I think it would be a good machine to take a break from the pounding while still supplementing my running as well as commute with.

Peter Wagner makes them and calls them Whymcycles.

What a great name!

I don't see why anyone would want one for transportation. It takes more effort to ride than a bicycle.

I don't see why anyone would want one for transportation. It takes more effort to ride than a bicycle.


A bike takes more effort than a car but most of us here prefer it anyway. I read somewhere that a strong runner can maintain 20 mph on them. In the video on the sales website they show a guy using one on a century ride with bikes and he is blowing by many of them on a climb.

Yeah, I guess. To each his own. A guy on a unicycle blew me away on a century ride.

http://www.elliptigo.com/product/

Saw one of these yesterday, and got to wondering how well they work. I talked to the rider and she assured me that they climb well. The frame was made of aluminum and CF. I was quite surprised by how light it was and the quality of the build.

I'm going to test ride one the first chance I get.

There was one on the Seattle to Portland (200 miles ) ride last weekend as well the company was doing demos at rest stops...

Just a thought/possible derail- does the lack of a seat make it an illegal bicycle, or not a legally-bound bicycle?

Just a thought/possible derail- does the lack of a seat make it an illegal bicycle, or not a legally-bound bicycle?

Gets back to my basic question..... Is it a bike?

Gets back to my basic question..... Is it a bike?

Why does it matter what we call it?

Why does it matter what we call it?

Because of how the law views bikes and cyclists' rights. Turns out in CA this device probably fits the definition... is that true in other states?

It doesn't fit my definition of a bicycle.

Aside from that, it doesn't fit the legal definition in FL for a bicycle.

Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.003 Definitions.--The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section, except where the context otherwise requires:

(2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.

Gets back to my basic question..... Is it a bike?

Hah, the thread had wandered so far I didn't realize I was re-railing.

^ That FL law makes unicycles 'not bicycles', too. I wonder what that does to people riding such devices in traffic- I guess they fall under the same category as wheelchairs, then? I'd like to see how police deal with a vehicluar-cycling elliptigo rider?

Gets back to my basic question..... Is it a bike?

Yes. Its a two wheel inline vehicle powered by human propulsion. Thats my definition of a bicycle. The first were the foot on ground propelled bikes of the 19 century, the Draisine being an example.

Yes. Its a two wheel inline vehicle powered by human propulsion. Thats my definition of a bicycle. The first were the foot on ground propelled bikes of the 19 century, the Draisine being an example.

But did all those others have a seat?

But did all those others have a seat?

I don't think a bike has to have a seat to be a bike. What about downhill bmx bikes that have a vestigial seat that is never used?

They are quite fun, but they are not bikes, legally anyway. Gotta have a seat and pedals to be a bike.Depends on the specific state's law. For example, from Texas law (541.201) --

(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

Gets back to my basic question..... Is it a bike?

It may vary by state, but in OR (and, I suspect CA) it is NOT a bike. When riding it one would be a pedestrian (but a damned fast one):

801.150 "Bicycle." "Bicycle" means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
(2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
(3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in contact with the ground;
(4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
(5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in
diameter. [1983 c.338 §22]

It may vary by state, but in OR (and, I suspect CA) it is NOT a bike. When riding it one would be a pedestrian (but a damned fast one):

801.150 "Bicycle." "Bicycle" means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
(2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
(3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in contact with the ground;
(4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
(5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in
diameter. [1983 c.338 §22]

So far FL and OR require seats to make it a "bike..." CA has no such requirement.

It may vary by state, but in OR (and, I suspect CA) it is NOT a bike. When riding it one would be a pedestrian (but a damned fast one)Actually, just because your vehicle doesn't meet your state's definition of a bicycle, that doesn't mean you're legally a fast pedestrian.

The law could just call it a generic "vehicle".

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. In general, the law (i.e. police, courts, etc.) treat anything that's even vaguely bike like (mostly this means it's small and human powered) as a bike, even if it's got three or four wheels, no pedals, no seat, wheels that are not tandem or too small to meet their definition, etc.) like a bike.

For example, it would really suck to get a ticket for riding your 12" tire folding bike on a bike lane and get a ticket for that. Fortunately, that almost never happens. (I think the "tires must be larger than X inches" stuff is meant to exclude children's bicycles.)

I once saw a human-powered vehicle with the wheelbase of an average car, bucket seats, and even a trunk; all four riders had pedals that were all tied together something like two tandem bikes side-by-side. I've since wondered what the legal definition of the vehicle was.

Edit: I took a picture! This was in Davis, CA.
http://i28.tinypic.com/35819nc.jpg

Saw a couple of the elliptical-trainer type on a rather hilly (and wet) metric century ride here in April. They appeared to be making pretty good time - not in the first few groups but ahead of most of the regular bikes. I suspect they might do less well on a flat course that's into a headwind.

In my opinion it is a bicycle. 2 wheels? check. Human powered? check. Foot crank operated chain drive? Check, just a little more complicated than usual.

I don't see what whether it has a seat or not really has to do with anything, besides the fact that some make the baseless assumption that it's lack of seat makes it not a bike...just because of the wording of some laws. This is pure silliness. Is a bicycle with the seat removed no longer a bike? Modern BMX saddles are basically vestigial at this point, only being used as a holding point for some maneuvers and maybe sitting on while waiting ones turn to perform a trick over some obstacle. Apperently they have even done away with seatposts: The seat bolts directly to the frame. I don't think anyone would argue that BMX's are not bikes though.

In my opinion it is a bicycle. 2 wheels? check. Human powered? check. Foot crank operated chain drive? Check, just a little more complicated than usual.

I don't see what whether it has a seat or not really has to do with anything, besides the fact that some make the baseless assumption that it's lack of seat makes it not a bike...just because of the wording of some laws. This is pure silliness. Is a bicycle with the seat removed no longer a bike? Modern BMX saddles are basically vestigial at this point, only being used as a holding point for some maneuvers and maybe sitting on while waiting ones turn to perform a trick over some obstacle. Apperently they have even done away with seatposts: The seat bolts directly to the frame. I don't think anyone would argue that BMX's are not bikes though.

The problem is that the fine points of the law do make a difference... especially if you are in a courtroom.

Then is this a bicycle or a car?

http://www.youtube.com/v/lbIWv8d1DCQ

Then is this a bicycle or a car?

http://www.youtube.com/v/lbIWv8d1DCQ

Well it is NOT a bicycle, as it has more than two wheels. But apparently it is legal. http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/410165

Then is this a bicycle or a car?

http://www.youtube.com/v/lbIWv8d1DCQ

Cop: "the safety factor is.....unsafe." :lol:

I think the cop kinda realized as he was saying those words how incredilby safe that vehicle was.

Really, It should have had some sort of disclaimer on the back to let motorists know what it was (why the heck is that monte carlo in front of me only doing 8km/h!?!?!?1) and maybe some working brake lights.

Oh, and if 4 wheeled pedal powered contraptions that don't have monte carlo bodies wrapped around them are considered bicycles, then I think this can be considered a bike too.

Don't have it in front of me, but WI definition does not include pedals; that (since it requires feet) was found to be an ADA violation. I think it reads "operated by a crank" or some such. It does, however, include a seat, so the contraption starting this thread would constitute a "play vehicle". Human-powered play vehicles are perfectly legal on the streets here, they're just not "vehicles", and not subject to the same privileges and responsibilities. In effect, you're a pedestrian. Motorized play vehicles (electric stand-on scooters, for example) are not allowed on public sidewalks or streets here. Anything with both a motor and a seat is considered a motor vehicle, and all the "street legal" (lights, brakes, etc.) laws apply.

Wheel-wise, in WI, if at least two of the wheels are at least 16" in diameter, it's a bicycle. So a Rhodes Car or a gutted and pedaled Monte Carlo would be a bicycle. "As far to the right as practicable" takes on a new meaning, however.....

Interesting concept ... :thumb:

http://www.elliptigo.com/product/

http://www.elliptigo.com/assets/image-gallery/Photos/ElliptiGO-8S-in-action/_resampled/SetWidth500-IMG8424.png

In my opinion it is a bicycle. 2 wheels? check. Human powered? check. Foot crank operated chain drive? Check, just a little more complicated than usual.

I don't see what whether it has a seat or not really has to do with anything, besides the fact that some make the baseless assumption that it's lack of seat makes it not a bike...just because of the wording of some laws. This is pure silliness. Is a bicycle with the seat removed no longer a bike? Modern BMX saddles are basically vestigial at this point, only being used as a holding point for some maneuvers and maybe sitting on while waiting ones turn to perform a trick over some obstacle. Apperently they have even done away with seatposts: The seat bolts directly to the frame. I don't think anyone would argue that BMX's are not bikes though.

I would, they're more like toys... :P

I don't see what whether it has a seat or not really has to do with anything, besides the fact that some make the baseless assumption that it's lack of seat makes it not a bike...just because of the wording of some laws. This is pure silliness. "Silliness" and "legal definition" often go hand-in-hand. Here in WI, motorcycles (they call them "scooters"; yeah, right!) that have NO WAY of being human-powered (no pedals/crank), but just happen to be under a certain engine displacement, are legally defined as "mopeds", and thus (get this) can be PARKED ON A SIDEWALK. Alas, all the "baseless assumption" and "silliness" arguments in the world won't get you anywhere in front of the judge.

This one isn't designed to improve or replace the bicycle. It's a mobile elliptical trainer. As a runner, I want one because the workout is more specific to running muscles than a bicycle is. The $2,100 price tag is the only thing stopping me.

Just remove the seat of your current bike.

Seriously, some people train that way.