Steamboy

2001 Rans Velocity squared vs Trek recumbent r200.
Which is better? I can get either used for $400-$500 each.
Thanks for any opinions.

Jeff Wills

The Trek was an interesting try for a big manufacturer, but I'd go with the RANS any day.

BlazingPedals

RANS tried to make the V2 speedy, in a sporting way. Trek, OTOH, ... nobody, not even Trek, knows for sure what their design goals were. I'd get the RANS, too. Having a 40-speed transmission is NOT an advantage.

iamtheeggman

I have an r200 I picked up cheap many years ago sitting in the back of the shed. The 20" wheels combined with the complexity of the 40 speed (which never worked that great) make the better thought out V2 a much better choice. Fewer drive train problems and faster. If the V2 has a good straight frame, it would be hard to go to far wrong. the r200 is just a curiousity (even in the recumbent world).

Steamboy

Great, thanks!

Steamboy

Iamtheeggman thank you. Good to hear from an owner.

duopar

Hey, more gear ratios is always better!

I've actually seen one bike with a triple crank, 9-speed cassette and a SRAM Dual Drive hub. 3x9x3 = 81 speeds.

tim24k

+1

BlazingPedals

My V-Rex24 used to be set up with a 3x3x7, for 63 speeds. That was before the Dual-Drive came out. Lots of duplicate gears. The advantage to me was the total range, not the number of gears.

rydabent

No doubt about it, go for the Rans.

Steamboy

Ok thanks everyone. Now velocity squared vs rocket?
mind you this is my first bent.
I'm 6 foot tall and about 270 pounds.
Hoping to burn some of it off with the bike.
Thanks again.

JanMM

The rocket would be much easier to transport in/on a car. The Velocity squared should be more comfortable on non-smooth roads because of the long frame and one large wheel. The Rocket has two small wheels - small wheels can be stronger than larger wheels, all else being equal. Not sure of the weight limits of those bikes - you're probably at the upper limits. Both bikes have their fans.
I enjoy both my RANS bikes. (And the tandem, too.)

rydabent

Again go for the V2. For a first recumbent it will be easier to get used to. Also with the seat and the BB at about the same height, your aero profile will be better.

BlazingPedals

V2 was a higher-end bike compared to the Rocket. Not that the Rocket is a bad bike - I'd take one over a Trek any day. The V2 will likely have more speed capability and give a better ride due to the larger rear wheel and the long wheelbase, while the Rocket will have sportier handling - sharper turning and better acceleration. At 6' tall, either would probably fit you okay - test ride still recommended before shelling out $$$.

iamtheeggman

I think this choice is less clearcut. Depends a little on how and where you will use the bike, what means of transport you have, and where you have to store it. The V2 is less convenient to store and transport and is faster. The Rocket is easier on transporting and storing. In a high-density urban environment, the Rocket COULD make more sense. Out in the burbs and further out, the V2 would definitely be the way to go. You would have fun on either. I suggest buying both! You really can't go wrong having lots of recumbents!

JanMM

Problem solved!

Steamboy

That comment about getting both was great!
I ended up getting an X3-AX for the same price as the other ones.

JanMM

Happy triking!

Steamboy

Thanks!

osco53

So So true,,I got 27 gears,,,I use 8 or 9 of them,,,,,