Fifty Plus (50+) - Is it a bent, or isn't it?

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263278_2129085799188_1607271639_2086938_4797844_n.jpg

I called this a "semi-recumbent." The owner, Sayre Kulp, who rode it to victory in the Dutch Country Bicycle Race yesterday, called it a "pedal forward road bike." Who is correct?

More bike photos:

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/281942_2129109199773_1607271639_2086997_6814565_n.jpg

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/262482_10150247236876344_629866343_7604656_2563343_n.jpg

Things that make me wonder:

*Extra weight on saddle = high center of gravity & sore butt?
*Seat stays & seatpost getting more load/stress?
*Rear wheel gets lots more weight?
*I can't imagine standing!

*Strain on lower back from position?
*With body bent in half, who does one breathe?

Enquiring minds and all that...

Rans, the manufacturer, calls that a "crank forward bike". They even have 2 frame geometry variations, one that makes standing on the pedals possible, and one that provides a lower seat height. Advantages cited include:
1. No learning curve because handling and balance are conventional.
2. Good climbing ability.
3. Efficient and more fun to ride.
4. Flat footed stance and low center of gravity.
5. Little or no palm pressure.
6. Relief from neck and back pressure.
That sounds to me like they are trying to address the perceived drawbacks of both recumbent and conventionally designed bicycles by producing a product that's halfway between.

FWIW, Rans is also a major manufacturer of recumbent bicycles.

Looks like your legs would hit your arms on every pedal stroke.

The owner, Sayre Kulp, who rode it to victory in the Dutch Country Bicycle Race yesterday, called it a "pedal forward road bike."

Presumably the second-runnerup was riding something like this?
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f289/Rosegarciathestylist/13462392rosenineteen8147200751148PM.jpg

They are not one of rides of choice but many people like their crank forward bikes. As noted, RANS produces some good ones.

Crank forward bikes are popular with those who want to come to a stop flat footed.

they have, as a type, become an offering in most bike brand's lineup.

a recumbent includes back support, weight on the bars is just your arms .

Absolutely not a recumbent bike. Similar to the Electra Flat Foot Technology bikes but RANS crank forwards are sportier. Unlike recumbents, no aero advantage to CF bikes.

Crank forward to be sure... Sorry.

For mine, the fact that the rider is leaning forward is not recumbent. The idea about recumbent is that the rider lays back and has the feet out front to pedal. This applies even with the fast, short-wheelbased recumbents that race 24-hour and similar events.

While this has the BB moved forward compared with a conventional bike, it's not far enough to have Sayre sitting back. So I vote with pedal forward. Sure would appear to be a design that gives a comfortable ride, what with the longer wheelbase and tubes between the head and seat tubes.

RANS crank-forwards are deliberately designed to be halfway between recumbents and uprights. Even the seat is a modified recumbent seat pan instead of a saddle.

http://www.ransbikes.com/images/gallery/GShorten.jpg

The RANS line-up sort-of competes with the Electras, except they are much higher up the food chain from the Electras. Unfortunately, most folks looking for a bike like that want the cheapest POS they can find, which puts the RANS at a disadvantage. As you might expect from looking at it, it's not designed to be particularly fast.

http://www.ransbikes.com/Dynamik-N.htm

Neil, I have to agree on "crank forward" and as they become more popular will muddle the binary debate between recumbents and traditional diamond frame bicycles. ;) When I first saw one I really didn't know what to think of them, but it looks like a viable design.

Brad

PS KS, Can you climb out of the saddle?

As you might expect from looking at it, it's not designed to be particularly fast.


Sayre Kulp finished the five mile race in 15 minutes and change. 20 MPH is pretty fast to me. :-)

Things that make me wonder:

*Extra weight on saddle = high center of gravity & sore butt?
*Seat stays & seatpost getting more load/stress?
*Rear wheel gets lots more weight?
*I can't imagine standing!

*Strain on lower back from position?
*With body bent in half, who does one breathe?

Enquiring minds and all that...

Addressing your concerns:

* 270# rider on carbon seat with no discomfort.
* I'm over the recommended weight limit by 20# and treat it pretty rough with no issues.
* 1 broken spoke from when I hit a rock. That's about it.
* Standing is difficult on this model, however the fact that you can pull down into the pedals makes standing to climb unnecessary.

* No back strain. I'm only folded up when necessary for descending hills.
* The same way that professional Tour riders do. And they've folded much more tightly than I ever will be.

Looks like your legs would hit your arms on every pedal stroke.

Nope.

Presumably the second-runnerup was riding something like this?
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f289/Rosegarciathestylist/13462392rosenineteen8147200751148PM.jpg

No, actually.

Here's the second place finisher:
213219

Neil, I have to agree on "crank forward" and as they become more popular will muddle the binary debate between recumbents and traditional diamond frame bicycles. ;) When I first saw one I really didn't know what to think of them, but it looks like a viable design.

Brad

PS KS, Can you climb out of the saddle?

As I said, climbing out of the saddle is difficult on this model, however the fact that you can pull down into the pedals makes standing to climb unnecessary.

How does your speed compare with a standard road bike? You really moved only in this race!

I bought a "crank forward" bike for my wife a few years ago. It's not quite as stretched out as this Rans, but the idea is similar; she can hit the brakes and put her feet on the ground while sitting.

I've tried it of course. It works great, feels very pleasingly secure in urban situations, and is just plain fun.

Sayre, you have another 23 years before you can post here legally. :-) I'm surprised none of the geezers here has offered you milk and cookies yet. Or yelled at you to get off their lawn....

Get off my lawn!!!!!!





But leave your bike...

It doesn't seem to me that it is ridden in a recumbent position, sorry

I rode a crank forward design a while back (A Trek Pure) and really liked it. If, and when money allows, I may have to get one. My impression of it though was one of some feelings of strange familiarity... I thought about if for a while, and suddenly realized that years ago when I had a twenty inch Schwinn Stingray with a Banana seat, it was the same basic seating position as the (now) "Crank forward" designs. Different approach but same basic outcome. :)

Sayre, you have another 23 years before you can post here legally. :-) I'm surprised none of the geezers here has offered you milk and cookies yet. Or yelled at you to get off their lawn....

:lol: Via your profile you still have five years left to be "Legal" yourself...

:lol: Via your profile you still have five years left to be "Legal" yourself...

I'm a guest of Beverly. She invited me. Besides with my health problems I have more in common with the folks here than anywhere else on Bike Forums.

* Standing is difficult on this model, however the fact that you can pull down into the pedals makes standing to climb unnecessary.




I just recently asked about this in the "Recumbent = Nerd?" thread, and was told that it's not a zero sum game; that the inability to stand when climbing on a 'bent (and, presumably, a crank-forward bike) takes a larger penalty than any advantage offered by the ability to stomp the pedals in the back-supported leg-press position. Not that I believe everything I read on teh internetz...

I just recently asked about this in the "Recumbent = Nerd?" thread, and was told that it's not a zero sum game; that the inability to stand when climbing on a 'bent (and, presumably, a crank-forward bike) takes a larger penalty than any advantage offered by the ability to stomp the pedals in the back-supported leg-press position. Not that I believe everything I read on teh internetz...
It is possible to stand up on some of the more recent RANS crank forward models.
I don't missing standing on my 'bents. My wife/stoker and I switched to a 'bent tandem after riding a KHS tandem for ten years - we never got out of the saddle on that bike and only had to walk up one hill (two differerent occasions).

So I guess the big decision when riding a crank forward bike is which side you belong to? Are you in the sandal camp or not.:D

So I guess the big decision when riding a crank forward bike is which side you belong to? Are you in the sandal camp or not.:D

You can be in both. Sayre rode the bike in the race and on a trail ride that afternoon. The sandals came out for the trail ride. All he needed to complete the look were the beard and pot belly. :-)

I thought that other thread was dead.

I just recently asked about this in the "Recumbent = Nerd?" thread, and was told that it's not a zero sum game; that the inability to stand when climbing on a 'bent (and, presumably, a crank-forward bike) takes a larger penalty than any advantage offered by the ability to stomp the pedals in the back-supported leg-press position. Not that I believe everything I read on teh internetz...

See now I'd disagree with that. On a recumbent, using the back-supported leg-press, I can push more torque through the cranks than I could simply using my weight alone. It is less-so on the crank-forward bike where I can't push against a seat, nor can I completely stand on the pedals. However I can still elevate off the seat and pull on the bar to give me more than just my weight alone on the cranks. Therefore I would have to assume that in both cases, I can achieve more power than the standard standing up and mashing on the pedals technique of a typical upright bicycle.

How does your speed compare with a standard road bike? You really moved only in this race!

Difficult to say. I've not been timed on a standard road bike, but I would suspect that I could achieve a higher speed simply due to the aerodynamic advantage. However, the toll it would take on my back and neck would prevent me from riding much, so my fitness would definitely go down. I guess I can't have my cake and eat it too.

Get off my lawn!!!!!!

Not without my milk and cookies, damn it!

See now I'd disagree with that. On a recumbent, using the back-supported leg-press, I can push more torque through the cranks than I could simply using my weight alone. It is less-so on the crank-forward bike where I can't push against a seat, nor can I completely stand on the pedals. However I can still elevate off the seat and pull on the bar to give me more than just my weight alone on the cranks. Therefore I would have to assume that in both cases, I can achieve more power than the standard standing up and mashing on the pedals technique of a typical upright bicycle.

I think the real question is, does it matter on a modern bike? I can see it, on an old 10 speed, but I have a 3x8 speed mountain bike that ranges from 17 to 100 gear inches, I would assume that a 3 x10 or 3x11 speed would be able to stretch this out to maybe 15 to 120 gear inches, so why the heck would you need to stand to pedal, when you can just drop to a lower gear and keep going, while on the seat?

I think the real question is, does it matter on a modern bike? I can see it, on an old 10 speed, but I have a 3x8 speed mountain bike that ranges from 17 to 100 gear inches, I would assume that a 3 x10 or 3x11 speed would be able to stretch this out to maybe 15 to 120 gear inches, so why the heck would you need to stand to pedal, when you can just drop to a lower gear and keep going, while on the seat?

You're making an invalid assumption that having more gears on the back results in more gear range. The derailleurs are only capable of taking up so much slack, regardless of how many steps are in between the extremes. But you're right in that a bent can be geared as low as you need it to go. Low gears will be slower than bigger gears, the riders that need the lower gears aren't strong enough to push the bigger gears; so it all works out.

I think the real question is, does it matter on a modern bike? I can see it, on an old 10 speed, but I have a 3x8 speed mountain bike that ranges from 17 to 100 gear inches, I would assume that a 3 x10 or 3x11 speed would be able to stretch this out to maybe 15 to 120 gear inches, so why the heck would you need to stand to pedal, when you can just drop to a lower gear and keep going, while on the seat?

Honestly, you can stay seated and spin. I prefer to stand and crank. The point I was making is that you CAN push more if you have the leg strength to do it.

You're making an invalid assumption that having more gears on the back results in more gear range. The derailleurs are only capable of taking up so much slack, regardless of how many steps are in between the extremes. But you're right in that a bent can be geared as low as you need it to go. Low gears will be slower than bigger gears, the riders that need the lower gears aren't strong enough to push the bigger gears; so it all works out.

It doesn't mean that you get a larger range, but it CAN mean a larger range, in that it can preserve the gap between gears with a larger range, or it can maintain the same range with a smaller gap or it can do some of each, lessen the gap and extend the range. I'm not so sure about lower gears being always slower, if that was the case, then bicycle races would use single speeds exclusively, with a high gear ratio and save the weight of the gear changing mechanism entirely. The key with gears is to maintain a sane pedalling rate, while not having to push too high a gear.

Honestly, you can stay seated and spin. I prefer to stand and crank. The point I was making is that you CAN push more if you have the leg strength to do it.

Whatever, hey don't complain though in 10 years when you have blown your knees from all that mashing and your looking at buying bionic replacements.....

Whatever, hey don't complain though in 10 years when you have blown your knees from all that mashing and your looking at buying bionic replacements.....

That's kind of a hard doom & gloom presumption, don't you think? I mean I do pretty intense weight training. I squat close to 700 lbs. on a fairly regular basis. I also run long distance. Either one of those things could just as easily destroy my knees. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop them either.

It really comes down to a matter of preference. Perhaps your method of getting up hills is to lower your gear and spin like crazy. That's great if it works for you, but with the weight I have to huff up a hill, I find it more efficient to use said weight to my advantage and push myself up the hill that way. I use more strength and less cardio with this method. In doing so, I may work my knees, but I avoid peaking out my max heart rate.

But honestly - your comment about me blowing my knees would be like me saying to you "whatever, hey don't complain in 10 years when your heart explodes at 200 bpm."

I think the real question is, does it matter on a modern bike? I can see it, on an old 10 speed, but I have a 3x8 speed mountain bike that ranges from 17 to 100 gear inches, I would assume that a 3 x10 or 3x11 speed would be able to stretch this out to maybe 15 to 120 gear inches, so why the heck would you need to stand to pedal, when you can just drop to a lower gear and keep going, while on the seat?

I think it was Merckx who, when asked whether it was better to use a smaller gear and spin fast, or to use a bigger gear and spin slow, replied "It is better to use a big gear, and spin fast."

Since this relates to power output, I will say there are very very few people (I don't know any) who can ride as fast as they are capable of riding, while remaining 'seated and spinning' the whole time. For me, the fastest way up a hill is to alternate between sitting and standing. I generate my highest power by standing, but that is shorter lived. So I use the standing power to accelerate (or generally to get BACK up to pace), then sit back down and shift one tooth lower while trying to maintain the faster pace. I will usually gradually slow a little while seated, then repeat the process. It all works best by using the standing intervals on the steepest parts of a hill, and also to get well into the hill before having to stand. Many people use variations of this technique. Ideally, both your sitting and standing sets of muscles (which of course overlap) are equally shot when you crest.

You see this watching pro races. Riders stand in three situations: A. To "jump" (either breaking away or chasing a break), B. For relief during a long climb, and C. On the steepest parts of a climb. If that steep part is long eneough, you'll them sit back down, then stand back up... over and over.

I think it was Merckx who, when asked whether it was better to use a smaller gear and spin fast, or to use a bigger gear and spin slow, replied "It is better to use a big gear, and spin fast."

Since this relates to power output, I will say there are very very few people (I don't know any) who can ride as fast as they are capable of riding, while remaining 'seated and spinning' the whole time. For me, the fastest way up a hill is to alternate between sitting and standing. I generate my highest power by standing, but that is shorter lived. So I use the standing power to accelerate (or generally to get BACK up to pace), then sit back down and shift one tooth lower while trying to maintain the faster pace. I will usually gradually slow a little while seated, then repeat the process. It all works best by using the standing intervals on the steepest parts of a hill, and also to get well into the hill before having to stand. Many people use variations of this technique. Ideally, both your sitting and standing sets of muscles (which of course overlap) are equally shot when you crest.

You see this watching pro races. Riders stand in three situations: A. To "jump" (either breaking away or chasing a break), B. For relief during a long climb, and C. On the steepest parts of a climb. If that steep part is long eneough, you'll them sit back down, then stand back up... over and over.

That's pretty much how I do it too. And I must admit I love the quote about using a big gear and spinning fast. I'll have to remember that one.

I think it was Merckx who, when asked whether it was better to use a smaller gear and spin fast, or to use a bigger gear and spin slow, replied "It is better to use a big gear, and spin fast."

Since this relates to power output, I will say there are very very few people (I don't know any) who can ride as fast as they are capable of riding, while remaining 'seated and spinning' the whole time. For me, the fastest way up a hill is to alternate between sitting and standing. I generate my highest power by standing, but that is shorter lived. So I use the standing power to accelerate (or generally to get BACK up to pace), then sit back down and shift one tooth lower while trying to maintain the faster pace. I will usually gradually slow a little while seated, then repeat the process. It all works best by using the standing intervals on the steepest parts of a hill, and also to get well into the hill before having to stand. Many people use variations of this technique. Ideally, both your sitting and standing sets of muscles (which of course overlap) are equally shot when you crest.

You see this watching pro races. Riders stand in three situations: A. To "jump" (either breaking away or chasing a break), B. For relief during a long climb, and C. On the steepest parts of a climb. If that steep part is long eneough, you'll them sit back down, then stand back up... over and over.

You missed the point, on a bent or a crank forward design, you can't stand and pedal, the argument then becomes are these bikes then not as good, because you can't stand and pedal. Maybe you don't have to stand and pedal. Standing and pedalling was common up until the mid 1980's because we had few gears in a fairly narrow range to keep the gap manageable, and in that much narrower design we had only downtube friction shifters, which meant you shifted a lot less. Now with a lot more gears and wider gear ranges and easy on the brakes shifting, the NEED to run only in a high gear, and stand and pedal, isn't as important. If you need to stand and pedal, your in too high a gear, and your mashing, that is a racing technique, but if like many of us, your not racing, but your still standing a pedalling then, you should be aware that it's a technique with a cost, it's harder on the knees and it's harder on equipment.

For mine, the fact that the rider is leaning forward is not recumbent. The idea about recumbent is that the rider lays back and has the feet out front to pedal.

Put the clutch in before you shift that paradigm (http://youtu.be/d-akkbNyiXE).

shift that paradigm (http://youtu.be/d-akkbNyiXE).

Wow. I can't decide if that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, or a cool concept with stupidly misguided marketing.

So... is that a 'bent?

Wow. I can't decide if that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, or a cool concept with stupidly misguided marketing.

So... is that a 'bent?

In that example, the rider is prone, not supine. I can't say that I would call it a recumbent.

You missed the point, on a bent or a crank forward design, you can't stand and pedal, the argument then becomes are these bikes then not as good, because you can't stand and pedal. Maybe you don't have to stand and pedal. Standing and pedalling was common up until the mid 1980's because we had few gears in a fairly narrow range to keep the gap manageable, and in that much narrower design we had only downtube friction shifters, which meant you shifted a lot less. Now with a lot more gears and wider gear ranges and easy on the brakes shifting, the NEED to run only in a high gear, and stand and pedal, isn't as important. If you need to stand and pedal, your in too high a gear, and your mashing, that is a racing technique, but if like many of us, your not racing, but your still standing a pedalling then, you should be aware that it's a technique with a cost, it's harder on the knees and it's harder on equipment.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I was addressing the point you made, which was that modern gear ranges obviate the need to "stand and grind". I pointed out that standing, whether you grind or not (when you are fit, you generally only shift by one cog), enhances performance for the vast bulk of the cycling population, regardless of the availability of a wide range of gears. In a discussion of power output, and wear and tear on joints, I'd point out that, for equal amounts of torque, standing to apply it places less stress on your knees than sitting to apply that torque. And, to exaggerate your argument, sitting places less stress on your knees than walking, but it isn't healthier. So, if you want to putter about at slow speeds and low torque, feel free to do so. But don't apply the resulting paradigm to debates about performance and the application of power, as it just doesn't apply.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I was addressing the point you made, which was that modern gear ranges obviate the need to "stand and grind". I pointed out that standing, whether you grind or not (when you are fit, you generally only shift by one cog), enhances performance for the vast bulk of the cycling population, regardless of the availability of a wide range of gears. In a discussion of power output, and wear and tear on joints, I'd point out that, for equal amounts of torque, standing to apply it places less stress on your knees than sitting to apply that torque. And, to exaggerate your argument, sitting places less stress on your knees than walking, but it isn't healthier. So, if you want to putter about at slow speeds and low torque, feel free to do so. But don't apply the resulting paradigm to debates about performance and the application of power, as it just doesn't apply.

You actually did miss the point, let me say it again: on a bent or a crank forward design, you can't stand and pedal.
Now, as I said also said: modern bicycles, of any design, don't require standing and pedalling, because we have wider gear ranges now, so you can sit and pedal, if you want to.

If you really want to stand and pedal in a higher gear, go ahead, I am not asking that it be made illegal or anything, just that you need to realise that it's going to be harder on joints and equipment. Especially for riders like me, who have to work for a living, and don't have all day every day to work on fitness level. Your argument about torque is right, except for one thing the torque isn't equal, the torque is less in a lower gear, because of the mechanical advantage, you pedal further, but with less effort to go the same speed, up hill.

In that example, the rider is prone, not supine. I can't say that I would call it a recumbent.

Webster does.

You actually did miss the point, let me say it again: on a bent or a crank forward design, you can't stand and pedal.
Now, as I said also said: modern bicycles, of any design, don't require standing and pedalling, because we have wider gear ranges now, so you can sit and pedal, if you want to.

If you really want to stand and pedal in a higher gear, go ahead, I am not asking that it be made illegal or anything, just that you need to realise that it's going to be harder on joints and equipment. Especially for riders like me, who have to work for a living, and don't have all day every day to work on fitness level. Your argument about torque is right, except for one thing the torque isn't equal, the torque is less in a lower gear, because of the mechanical advantage, you pedal further, but with less effort to go the same speed, up hill.

You made your point in response to a post about how best to produce maximum torque, both on the crank-forward bike, and a standard bike. You basically said that there was no longer a need to stand and crank, givern the range of modern gearing. You said nothing to restrict that to 'bents or crank forward bikes, and the discussion was clearly comparing both. So, if you are not getting the point across that you want to get across, maybe you should try clarifying what you write.

I work for a living as well. I have pushed through any knee issues that developed as I've gotten fit, strengthening my knees so they can absorb the torque I need to generate to compete, whether that is sitting or standing. Maybe you just need to HTFU and get your knees in shape?

And I never said the torque was equal. My point was that you could generate the required torque using different muscle sets. And, by the way, the total work to get you up a hill at a given speed is the same regardless of which gear ratio you choose.

You made your point in response to a post about how best to produce maximum torque, both on the crank-forward bike, and a standard bike. You basically said that there was no longer a need to stand and crank, givern the range of modern gearing. You said nothing to restrict that to 'bents or crank forward bikes, and the discussion was clearly comparing both. So, if you are not getting the point across that you want to get across, maybe you should try clarifying what you write.

I work for a living as well. I have pushed through any knee issues that developed as I've gotten fit, strengthening my knees so they can absorb the torque I need to generate to compete, whether that is sitting or standing. Maybe you just need to HTFU and get your knees in shape?

And I never said the torque was equal. My point was that you could generate the required torque using different muscle sets. And, by the way, the total work to get you up a hill at a given speed is the same regardless of which gear ratio you choose.

Here is a question, if modern gearing (I have a 1975 road bike with a 34GI low end, and a 2005 mountain bike with double the number of gears and a 17GI low end), means that on a crank forward or a bent, we no longer need to stand and pedal like it's 1975, then does that suddenly mean that you need to stand and pedal on a modern diamond frame? I could say more, but I need to go to work...