High performance & durability Cannondale Semi Recumbent

Cowardlyduck said:
Yeah, we can all ignore Chalo's comments on recumbent's I think...he clearly has something against them while the rest of us enjoy using them without issue.
I also have a number of semi-recumbents with both long and short wheel bases, one of which is setup for very rough terrain and regularly gets over half a meter of air without issue.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, BikeE is the recumbent two wheeler that I have the most accumulated experience riding. I rented one to use as regular transportation for a multi day Seattle getaway when I was considering moving there. That thing wanted me dead every moment, and made for a harrowing ride even at 10 mph in the bike lane. It was constantly waiting for me to stop micromanaging the bars for just an instant, so it could flop to the side and squirt out from underneath me.

I was thinking the whole time, "people pay their own money for this?"

Other CWLB 'bents have felt similar to me, but not as treacherous as BikeE.

The LWB 'bents I've ridden (Infinity, Tour Easy, etc.) were just very shaky and tended to move in several directions at one time. They weren't fun, but they didn't feel venomous.

I haven't had any sufficiently long rides on a SWB 'bent to figure out how well or poorly those work for me. Only that knowing how to ride a bike well doesn't necessarily result in knowing how to ride one of them. It reminds me of my buddy decades ago who rode an Optima Hurricane. When another dude asked if he could ride it, he said "No. And it's not because I won't let you."

I can see how it might be entertaining to focus your attention enough to avoid getting thrown down and scuffed up by one of those bikes. But I like a bike I can ride with one or zero hands, that is willing to U-turn inside one lane or multi-use path without having to lower the landing gear, and will take care of me when I've had a few drinks. A 'bent trike might qualify for that role if/when I become that busted down (my sweetie has set aside a long boom Catrike for that contingency)-- but not a two wheeler.
 
Chalo said:
Oddly enough, BikeE is the recumbent two wheeler that I have the most accumulated experience riding. I rented one to use as regular transportation for a multi day Seattle getaway when I was considering moving there. That thing wanted me dead every moment, and made for a harrowing ride even at 10 mph in the bike lane. It was constantly waiting for me to stop micromanaging the bars for just an instant, so it could flop to the side and squirt out from underneath me.
Click to expand...

Were you using the stock handlebars? because this sounds familiar; that's my experience with all out of the box CLWB configurations; add wide handlebars and it's a totally different vehicle and very stable.

My medium wheelbase BikeE is stable enough for me to feel good about riding it up to around 30mph. And i'm 6ft tall so it's too small for me., so i've got the wrong bike. The Cannondale is a large wheel base model and feels way better at 30mph and beyond - go figure.

Learning to ride a semi recumbent also takes a few days to get right.

Personally i could never take to anything other than a CLWB because handling on full rembuments is too squirrely for me. It really seems like you don't have as much control or agility, then again, i didn't give them multiple days of practice either.
 
neptronix said:
Were you using the stock handlebars? because this sounds familiar; that's my experience with all out of the box CLWB configurations; add wide handlebars and it's a totally different vehicle and very stable.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting observation. My experience being on a rental bike, I didn't know why they'd have revised any of the original equipment. So it probably had dinky bars if that's what they came with. They certainly were not wide.

My other half has a fully suspended BikeE (that she wobbled around on frighteningly even before her brain injury), so I have an eventual experiment with bar width that I can conduct.
 
Yeah i believe my bikeE came with stock handlebars and rode like total crap.
Having experience with putting swung-back BMX bars on the cannondale, i instinctively replaced them after the first ride.

On my bikeE, i also went with the thinnest pedals money could buy to get the seat forward an extra 1/4 inch.. the closer you sit to the center of the bike, the better the handling in my experience. The CLWB starts out with a huge rearward weight bias, so inches matter.
 
neptronix said:
On my bikeE, i also went with the thinnest pedals money could buy to get the seat forward an extra 1/4 inch.. the closer you sit to the center of the bike, the better the handling in my experience. The CLWB starts out with a huge rearward weight bias, so inches matter.
Click to expand...

My rental BikeE was the largest size (notionally bigger than any of their conventional bikes), but with my 40" standing inseam I still felt like I was sitting over the rear axle.

I once designed myself a recumbent railbike that could trailer its railbike parts for road sections. I never built one, but I put the seat closer to the middle of the wheelbase. I guess my intuitive design choice was correct.
 
I go to great lengths to place the weight forward on my recumbents...
dsc_6935-1024x768-jpg.341796


My other two have internal batteries.

There is also a great facebook group for BikeE's I recommend checking out.

Cheers
 
Honestly, i think about your large wheelbase bikeEs from time to time and think, i quite possibly chose the wrong recumbents.
Battery mounting looks some multiple easier on those, and this is a primary achille's heel on my other recumbents.

Fourth try's the charm? :ROFLMAO:
 
Chalo said:
My rental BikeE was the largest size (notionally bigger than any of their conventional bikes), but with my 40" standing inseam I still felt like I was sitting over the rear axle.
Click to expand...
And therein lays the problem. Your long legs places the CoG much too far aft on many LWB 'bents. Even some CLWBs that have poorly positioned cranksets (too far aft) and/or too short of WB, are clearly unsuitable for your inseam. And if you're overweight, it further exacerbates the problem.

This is why it is so critical to place the BB as close to, or slightly above the front wheel on the CLWB and a some LWBs. The idea, of course, is to shift the CoG as close as possible to optimum. Without a doubt, the sweetest handling production CLWB I've saddled, is the Bacchetta Cafe. Sadly, 'tis no longer in production.
Bacchetta-Cafe.jpg
Bacchetta Cafe Recumbent Bike - Bicycle Man
neptronix said:
..... the closer you sit to the center of the bike, the better the handling in my experience. The CLWB starts out with a huge rearward weight bias, so inches matter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!!!

SWB 'bent are a go-to recommendation for tall, long legged riders. Shorter riders, such as myself, are better suited for LWB platforms.
 
Last edited:
60 seconds to measure the Weight Distribution of your ride:

Bathroom scales and a book that is the same thickness of the scales. Scales under one wheel, book under the other. Grip the brakes and mount the bike and place both feet on the pedals - Place a chair next to the bike for hand-balacing. Read the scale - if you are unable, have a second person read it for you. Now weigh the other wheel. If the individual front and rear weights are the same, congradulations... you have 50%/50% WD.
 
Papa said:
And therein lays the problem. Your long legs places the CoG much too far aft on many LWB 'bents. Even some CLWBs that have poorly positioned cranksets (too far aft) and/or too short of WB, are clearly unsuitable for your inseam. And if you're overweight, it further exacerbates the problem.
Click to expand...

Being tall creates the same weight distribution "problem" on a traditional bike (because the rear triangle doesn't increase in length as the bike or rider gets taller)-- only it doesn't ruin the bike's handling. And my losing 50kg of body weight in the last year hasn't changed the handling of my normal layout bikes either.

That's a clue as to why normal layout is normal. It works best for most people most of the time. It's versatile. Both feet-forward bikes and so-called progressive MTBs forsake the virtues of a time-iterated design to accomplish other things that may not benefit most riders. I wish the bike industry would stick more closely to the best, most refined formula, but they tend to meddle with things for product distinction, fashion trends, or to make bikes physically smaller (and thus cheaper to manufacture and ship).
 
Chalo said:
Being tall creates the same weight distribution "problem" on a traditional bike (because the rear triangle doesn't increase in length as the bike or rider gets taller)-- only it doesn't ruin the bike's handling. And my losing 50kg of body weight in the last year hasn't changed the handling of my normal layout bikes either.

That's a clue as to why normal layout is normal. It works best for most people most of the time. It's versatile. Both feet-forward bikes and so-called progressive MTBs forsake the virtues of a time-iterated design to accomplish other things that may not benefit most riders. I wish the bike industry would stick more closely to the best, most refined formula, but they tend to meddle with things for product distinction, fashion trends, or to make bikes physically smaller (and thus cheaper to manufacture and ship).
Click to expand...
"Traditional"
/trəˈdiSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
Peer pressure from dead people

"Normal"
Is just a setting on a washing machine
 
Papa said:
"Traditional"
/trəˈdiSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
Peer pressure from dead people
Click to expand...

When it's bikes, we're talking about dead people who thought really hard about it for a really long time, and experimented with everything they could think of (including feet forward bikes). There used to be a lot of money in bikes. The USA had two patent offices for a while-- one for bikes, and one for everything else.

It's a peculiarly old-white-dude quirk to believe that you've figured out stuff that eluded the smartest folks around for over 150 years. And the recumbent community shows it.
 
Living in the west where creativity is the norm and tradition can be challenged, for better or worse, is awesome. So i'd like to take a moment to thank quirky old white dudes' for thinking out of the box and bringing us the recumbent bike. :mrgreen:

( and the electric bike too, plus an internet to talk about electric bikes on :ROFLMAO: )
 
neptronix said:
Hey.. congratulations on that!
Click to expand...
Thanks! My feet and ankles were in full mutiny, so I finally had a tangible reason to cut down on my gravity field. I resolved to be a little hungry all the time, and that worked. 386 when I started tracking, about 275 now. I hope to get to 240 (my weight at my youthful fitness peak) in due course.
 
Chalo said:
I hope to get to 240 (my weight at my youthful fitness peak) in due course.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the older we get the harder it is to lose weight. At least it is for me.

I've only ridden one recumbent bike. It was one of Tim Brummers custom 'Lighting' models. It was made for breaking a record and had a full enclosure. Even a flap to open for your feet to touch the ground. It had to be pushed in order to get it going. I vowed Never Again would I get on a full enclosed 'bent again.
 
I had been wondering too, are there any "low racer" style bikes narrow enough to fit on a bus rack?
The cruzbike seems kinda capable but the handlebars (or seat flipped) look in the way of the drivers vision haha
gotta get more AERO... i wonder if the lightning bike version with the fairings that still let you poke your feet out would accomodate a mid drive on the boom, they only sell a hub motor
1698366474112.png
this one is neat too, 19lb total, not really bad at all for the price, mounting mid to the carbon boom sounds a bit iffy though
1698366708409.png
20 + 16 Vigorous Low Racer Recumbent 20 Inch 16 Inch – Performer Cycles
The lightning spandex fairing system is super lightweight and really adds a lot, they have a version that lets you poke your feet out at a stop as well. But probably would be less cumbersome and weird to just go low narrow. people have mounted the bbs02 at least to these booms, they say its fine "as long as your hands are on the handlebars" haha... or do you want to go.. even lower....
1698367032886.png 1698367141067.png 1698367417583.png
 
Last edited:
uhmwpolyethylene said:
I had been wondering too, are there any "low racer" style bikes narrow enough to fit on a bus rack?
Click to expand...
True lowracer recumbents, most likely no. It's geometrically implausible unless you're a hobbit. There are probably some kinda-low SWB 'bents that could do it.

Note that lowracers are by far the hardest bicycles to balance, because of the low center of mass height and screwy steering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top