MikeSSS
1 kW
This year I've been on 3 different conversion ebikes for several hundred miles each, here's some observations.
First was a no suspension mid 70's bike that was muchly like a late 80's Hardrock Sport. I mounted riser bars with some back reach to get a more upright position and put on a wider C9 seat. This position was pretty good for riding but the seat was too high for stopping on uneven ground that has holes where you need to place a foot, I had a few falls when stopping. Eventually I lowered the seat to reduce falling but at the sacrifice of proper leg extension. The back of the thighs forced me forward on the seat because of contact with the wide part of the seat, resulting in less seat comfort. This rigid bike ride was too harsh. Total miles on this bike were probably 6 or 7 thousand over six years.
Second was a Jamis Hudson, a crank forward and seat closer to the ground bike, much like a Townie. Again I used riser bars with back sweep and a wide C9 saddle on this longer wheelbase, rigid bike. Because the cranks are less under the seat and farther forward than the first bike, there was less sliding forward on the wide C9 seat compared to the first bike and or other conventional bikes. It was easier to touch the ground, but not flat footed. Leg extension was adequate and it was easy to pedal hard and generate power. Handling was little different than normal bikes, even when pushed hard in cornering. Like a Townie, the Hudson carries a smaller percentage of total weight on the front tire and a higher percentage on the rear. Traction was not a problem for my direct drive front hub motor but is a problem on my wife's geared front hub motor on her Townie. Jolt from the front wheel, with its heavy DD front hub was very uncomfortable through the handle bars. Seat location is farther aft, closer to the rear axle and so jolt to the seat and spine was worse than on a normal bike. A cheap, simple suspension seatpost helped a lot. Standing over bumps was never a problem, even though the seat is farther aft from the bottom bracket than on normal bikes. I rode around 1500 miles on the Hudson.
Third is a 1997 Mongoose full suspension mountain bike, it was made for a rider leaning forward a lot seating position. A rear geared hubmotor is used, the rear suspension tames shock into the seat very well. The front suspension is stiffer but helps a lot. It's not plush ... until you ride off a curb and then it is just great. Going from crank forward to a more conventional crank location, much more under the seat, really aggravated the thighs forcing the rider forward on the wide C9 seat problem. I installed riser bars with back sweep and ride with an upright position on this FS bike. Crank to seat relationship is wrong for this rider position. But, full suspension is really nice. Because suspension sags on bumps, the bottom bracket is higher than on rigid bikes, if the seat is adjusted for proper leg extension, falling when stopped is a big problem, especially so off road on very uneven terrain and worse on steep and uneven climbs. As a result I've lowered the seat but now have too low seat to bottom bracket relationship and risk damage to the knees.
Present thoughts on an ideal bike, one that is low risk and capable of long rides. Crank forward really enables proper leg extension while being able to get feet on irregular ground when stopped. It also makes using a wide seat without slide forward problems possible, if there's enough forward in the crank forward. Suspension is a big deal in preserving your spine and joints, age happens. Suspension seatposts can work very well, so can suspension stems, I have a few thousand miles on suspension stems and they can help a lot, especially when using aero bars on a road bike. Dog Man Dan has done a great job explaining the advantages of a long tail rear triangle, specifically changing shock to the seat into a rocking motion of the whole bike.
So, here goes: Day 6 makes the Dream 8, it appears to be pedal forward more than a Townie and looks like it has the longest tail of any crank forward bike. It also looks like it has enough room for a Thudbuster LT suspension seatpost. The far crank forward allows the use of a wide seat and a seatback is an option. It has 8 speeds in the rear but looks like a three speed crank and derailleur can be fitted to the front. There is no front suspension though. Using a light rear hub motor instead of a heavy DD front hub reduces the need for front suspension, but doesn't eliminate it. This bike is pretty close though.
If the Dream 8 had front suspension, a longer tail rear suspension and three x eight gearing it would be close to perfect for a light geared rear hub motor.
My longest ride lately is 50 miles, limited by crotch pain, the right bike could remedy that.
When your crotch is gone but you wanna ride on in, no pain
Just remember this fact, that you want your back in, no pain
The crotch don't like, it don't like, it don't like, no pain
OK, what frames, bikes and riding positions work for you. Please mention your approximate age, riding terrain and miles per ride.
First was a no suspension mid 70's bike that was muchly like a late 80's Hardrock Sport. I mounted riser bars with some back reach to get a more upright position and put on a wider C9 seat. This position was pretty good for riding but the seat was too high for stopping on uneven ground that has holes where you need to place a foot, I had a few falls when stopping. Eventually I lowered the seat to reduce falling but at the sacrifice of proper leg extension. The back of the thighs forced me forward on the seat because of contact with the wide part of the seat, resulting in less seat comfort. This rigid bike ride was too harsh. Total miles on this bike were probably 6 or 7 thousand over six years.
Second was a Jamis Hudson, a crank forward and seat closer to the ground bike, much like a Townie. Again I used riser bars with back sweep and a wide C9 saddle on this longer wheelbase, rigid bike. Because the cranks are less under the seat and farther forward than the first bike, there was less sliding forward on the wide C9 seat compared to the first bike and or other conventional bikes. It was easier to touch the ground, but not flat footed. Leg extension was adequate and it was easy to pedal hard and generate power. Handling was little different than normal bikes, even when pushed hard in cornering. Like a Townie, the Hudson carries a smaller percentage of total weight on the front tire and a higher percentage on the rear. Traction was not a problem for my direct drive front hub motor but is a problem on my wife's geared front hub motor on her Townie. Jolt from the front wheel, with its heavy DD front hub was very uncomfortable through the handle bars. Seat location is farther aft, closer to the rear axle and so jolt to the seat and spine was worse than on a normal bike. A cheap, simple suspension seatpost helped a lot. Standing over bumps was never a problem, even though the seat is farther aft from the bottom bracket than on normal bikes. I rode around 1500 miles on the Hudson.
Third is a 1997 Mongoose full suspension mountain bike, it was made for a rider leaning forward a lot seating position. A rear geared hubmotor is used, the rear suspension tames shock into the seat very well. The front suspension is stiffer but helps a lot. It's not plush ... until you ride off a curb and then it is just great. Going from crank forward to a more conventional crank location, much more under the seat, really aggravated the thighs forcing the rider forward on the wide C9 seat problem. I installed riser bars with back sweep and ride with an upright position on this FS bike. Crank to seat relationship is wrong for this rider position. But, full suspension is really nice. Because suspension sags on bumps, the bottom bracket is higher than on rigid bikes, if the seat is adjusted for proper leg extension, falling when stopped is a big problem, especially so off road on very uneven terrain and worse on steep and uneven climbs. As a result I've lowered the seat but now have too low seat to bottom bracket relationship and risk damage to the knees.
Present thoughts on an ideal bike, one that is low risk and capable of long rides. Crank forward really enables proper leg extension while being able to get feet on irregular ground when stopped. It also makes using a wide seat without slide forward problems possible, if there's enough forward in the crank forward. Suspension is a big deal in preserving your spine and joints, age happens. Suspension seatposts can work very well, so can suspension stems, I have a few thousand miles on suspension stems and they can help a lot, especially when using aero bars on a road bike. Dog Man Dan has done a great job explaining the advantages of a long tail rear triangle, specifically changing shock to the seat into a rocking motion of the whole bike.
So, here goes: Day 6 makes the Dream 8, it appears to be pedal forward more than a Townie and looks like it has the longest tail of any crank forward bike. It also looks like it has enough room for a Thudbuster LT suspension seatpost. The far crank forward allows the use of a wide seat and a seatback is an option. It has 8 speeds in the rear but looks like a three speed crank and derailleur can be fitted to the front. There is no front suspension though. Using a light rear hub motor instead of a heavy DD front hub reduces the need for front suspension, but doesn't eliminate it. This bike is pretty close though.
If the Dream 8 had front suspension, a longer tail rear suspension and three x eight gearing it would be close to perfect for a light geared rear hub motor.
My longest ride lately is 50 miles, limited by crotch pain, the right bike could remedy that.
When your crotch is gone but you wanna ride on in, no pain
Just remember this fact, that you want your back in, no pain
The crotch don't like, it don't like, it don't like, no pain
OK, what frames, bikes and riding positions work for you. Please mention your approximate age, riding terrain and miles per ride.