Sofrider frame and weight

[Karl]

Hello all. I just joined this site today. I have some questions about the Sofrider. It is listed on the "Sofrider V2 Specs" page of this website as having a frame of "quality 7005 T6 aluminum alloy," and also a "power triangle" of the same. This surprises me because, in reading about the bicycle both on your website and at BROL (which I just joined today under the same username) I don't recall seeing the Sofrider described as a light bicycle. I have seen it referred to a number of times as being heavy.

I think of aluminum-framed bicycles as being strikingly light -- their lightness is remarkable -- yet I don't see Sofrider remarked upon as being especially light at the Cruzbike site or at BROL. Is the Sofrider an aluminum frame? Or am I misunderstanding "aluminum alloy" and there might be a difference between what I understand as an "aluminum frame" and "aluminum-alloy frame" (and power triangle)?

I became interested in the Sofrider upon first becoming aware of Cruzbike just yesterday when I 'stumbled upon' a few Cruzbike videos -- I don't even remember what I was searching for. The more I watched the more I liked. I ended up becoming interested in buying one even while assuming they were on the heavy side. It would be a pleasant surprise to find they are on the light side instead. I almost never saw anything mentioned about Sofrider's tube materials so I was actually assuming it might not even be chromoly. I never thought it might be aluminum, which in my (uninformed) mind means 'lighter.'

The "Sofrider V2 Specs" page at this website lists the Sofrider weight as 34.4 lbs with "Bell, Kickstand, Mirrycle Mirror supplied, wheel reflectors, front and rear reflectors." I'm not sure if this figure is for the single- or double-chainring model.

Today, I weighed the bicycle I now own on 2 bathroom scales. One reads 35 lbs and the other 39 lbs. I'm not sure which is right but I would guess it's 39. It's a Schwinn LeTour 10-speed, at least 30 years old, with 23.5-inch frame, (light) plastic fenders, front and back lights, back rack with a metal folding basket, kickstand and all reflectors.

I am very used-to and comfortable with this bicycle's weight. I lift it into and out of my car often (with front wheel and seat removed). I'm used to carrying it up and down subway steps with its folding metal basket open and filled with tools, tube, pump, etc.

My question is, "Is the Sofrider considered a heavy bicycle?" Before I noticed on the Specs page that its frame and front triangle are aluminum, I just naturally thought it was heavy, judging mainly by its low price compared to other recumbents, and peoples' comments on the forums here and at BROL. But if it's constructed of aluminum, what makes it so heavy? Or isn't 34 lbs considered heavy?

Sofrider seems like it would be transportable in my small car in much the same manner as my current Schwinn. I don't see why I couldn't take it into subways. Another thing I do with my current bicycle is taking it on train station escalators. I stand to one side on the escalator step, holding the bicycle securely against me, leaving plenty of room for people to walk past me while ascending or descending the escalator. This seems like it would be possible with the Sofrider also. I would have to be careful to keep the out-front chainrings away from people, but I am always conscious even now to keep my chain and gears away from the people around me.

Just wondering if my assumptions and expectations are valid for the Sofrider. Am I missing anything? I don't want to overlook anything before buying. Thanks.

 

[Doug Burton]

Hi Karl,

I have read all sorts of amazing things about bike weight. The two differing weights you measured are typical of the measurement error you'll encounter when folks quote bike weight. Some weigh with pedals, some without . I've even seen where 2 bikes weigh the same, and one is criticized for it's weight, and the other isn't.

The Sofrider generally comes in around 34 lbs, and the extra chainring is usually within the measurment error of your weighing method. It is all-aluminum, but it is a rugged frame and is built to be very strong.

My experience has been that suspended recumbents weigh in the neighborhood of 35lbs, non-suspended bikes weigh around 30 lbs, and "light" recumbents are about 28 lbs on down to 19lbs, the cost heading toward $10,000 as you get closer to 19 lbs.

If the weight of your venerable current steed doesn't bother you, the Sofrider probably won't either. Cruzbikes tend to have more of their weight over the front (without rider) so it may seem that the bike "carries" differently, but the riding weight distribution is about 50/50 front/rear.

Glad you're here. The brain trust around here can answer all your questions, I'm sure.

Best,

Doug

 

[Karl]

Doug,
Then it sounds like the weight has a lot to do with the fact it's a fully suspended bicycle. It's interesting to me it's an all-aluminum bicycle because one of the videos showed a young man riding it down a flight of steps and (I think in the same video) showed it ridden along railroad ties. I would think an aluminum frame would be in danger of cracking under those conditions. How is the ruggedness added to the frame?

 

[JonB]

Karl wrote: Doug,
Then it sounds like the weight has a lot to do with the fact it's a fully suspended bicycle. It's interesting to me it's an all-aluminum bicycle because one of the videos showed a young man riding it down a flight of steps and (I think in the same video) showed it ridden along railroad ties. I would think an aluminum frame would be in danger of cracking under those conditions. How is the ruggedness added to the frame?

I dont consider those videos truthful marketing. I do not consider the suspension soft enough to ride such places.

 

[Karl]

I would guess the suspension was bottoming out and it was a rough ride.

My interest in riding is strictly roads, although I do go on trails occasionally (if I have to) with the 1-1/4" tires I have. I would prefer if the Sofider have tires just the next grade thinner than their 1.5", but I'm glad to see in the Specs they're 100 psi, which I would think somewhat negates their wideness. I'm also glad they're not real thin (1").

 

[John Tolhurst]

JonB wrote:

Karl wrote: Doug,
Then it sounds like the weight has a lot to do with the fact it's a fully suspended bicycle. It's interesting to me it's an all-aluminum bicycle because one of the videos showed a young man riding it down a flight of steps and (I think in the same video) showed it ridden along railroad ties. I would think an aluminum frame would be in danger of cracking under those conditions. How is the ruggedness added to the frame?

I dont consider those videos truthful marketing. I do not consider the suspension soft enough to ride such places.

hi JonB,
it really depends what you assume the message to be. Those videos are a bit of fun and help people see the travel and operation of the suspension. I would not ride down steps if there was an alternative, nor ride down the middle of a railway line if there was an alternative. However, if it had to be done it can be.

There are some rough plank bridges around here and I find I run up to the back of other riders, because with the suspension, you keep your momentum more easily.

 

[John Tolhurst]

Karl wrote: Doug,
Then it sounds like the weight has a lot to do with the fact it's a fully suspended bicycle. It's interesting to me it's an all-aluminum bicycle because one of the videos showed a young man riding it down a flight of steps and (I think in the same video) showed it ridden along railroad ties. I would think an aluminum frame would be in danger of cracking under those conditions. How is the ruggedness added to the frame?

Hi Karl, the key to appreciating the ruggedness is to understand what kind of alloy is 7005 T6. It does not behave like other aluminum alloys, it has extremely high stiffness.

I would guess that if we skinnied the wall thickness down we could save a pound or two, but that is not what the sofrider is about. Sofrider is a rugged bike that will give many years of service. An equivalent stiffness frame in cromoly would be a lot heavier. 7005 T6 is a very common material for bicycle frames today.

 

[Karl]

Thanks for that explanation of the aluminum frame.

I'm thinking I might order a Sofrider. It seems like it fits my needs and I have always considered recumbents just a better idea than upright bicycles. FWD has always appealed to me also because I do know something about the way chains act and the difficulty of maintaining them. Recumbent chains just have always seemed to me appallingly long. But I always believed the prevailing 'wisdom' against FWD simply because I felt if 99% of recumbents drive their rear wheel, then, almost by definition, it is true that rear wheel drive is a good idea and front wheel drive is not.

I'm happy with my current bicycle except for the fact that on an all-day ride I know I will be very tired long before the end of the day. I like riding far, so this has become a problem for me and not just because I'm older now (58) because I'm one of the lucky ones that can still ride as far as I ever did. But over the years I realized I would never be able to truly enjoy a full-day ride because of the inevitable fatigue. From the very first minutes I'm on the bicycle I'm doing things to avoid and minimize the discomfort that will inevitably show up after an hour or so, instead of enjoying the ride to its fullest even in its early stages. If that could be minimized it would be a reason for me to switch bicycles. Still, the price of recumbents always held me back. I didn't know there was a recumbent that might appeal to me in its technical and design aspects (FWD and aluminum frame), fill my needs as far as fitting on city bus front racks and subway trains, and be reasonably priced.

I'm thinking now that I might get a Sofrider with 8 speeds, then when the original chain and chainwheel need replacement, put a triple chainring on. Maybe by then I'll not see a need for a triple.

 

[JonB]

John Tolhurst wrote:

JonB wrote: I dont consider those videos truthful marketing. I do not consider the suspension soft enough to ride such places.

hi JonB,
it really depends what you assume the message to be. Those videos are a bit of fun and help people see the travel and operation of the suspension. I would not ride down steps if there was an alternative, nor ride down the middle of a railway line if there was an alternative. However, if it had to be done it can be.

I assume the message to be that the suspension is good. It is not, it is barely sufficient, and i think it is actually insufficient for riding down stairs and on railway tracks, as seen in those videos. Actually those videos was part of the reason i bought the bike.

I do think that there is an alternative. Riding on cobblestone roads, this is something i suspect we all do occasionally if not regularly. Perhaps comparing to other bikes. How do you compare? average speed? or some scientific instrument that measures the forces on the seat.

If it had to be done, you can even ride a unsuspended bike on such places.

John Tolhurst wrote: There are some rough plank bridges around here and I find I run up to the back of other riders, because with the suspension, you keep your momentum more easily.

I totally agree, suspension is good. I just dont think the suspension on the cruzbike freerider are good enough for that kind of ride in those videos. At least not with my weight. I have tried other recumbent bikes and trikes at spezi 2010 that felt a lot more comfortable going over the curb than my freerider does. But i dont know the tire pressure on those bikes, while my freerider is high pressure, so it is not scientific comparison. I still think that the freerider front suspension could be better.

 

[John Tolhurst]

Hi Jon,
Your bike we sold for under USD1000, it has only a simple rear shock unit. If you want more compliant rear suspension, upgrade the shock to something that is air adjustable etc. The structure of the bike can provide plenty of cushy suspension on the back, if that's what you want. The front fork/shock cannot be modified.

 

[JonB]

John Tolhurst wrote: Hi Jon,
Your bike we sold for under USD1000, it has only a simple rear shock unit. If you want more compliant rear suspension, upgrade the shock to something that is air adjustable etc. The structure of the bike can provide plenty of cushy suspension on the back, if that's what you want. The front fork/shock cannot be modified.

I know i can change the rear suspension. But it is the front i find too much hard. I know it is in the cheap end of bikes. But there are cheaper bikes out there that gives a more plush suspension. Or it could be an add on. It is on other recumbents. So far i live with it, and avoid riding fast offroad and on cobblestone. I wonder if the Silvio front suspension is better?

 

[super slim]

John B,
If you go to 1.9" tyres at 65 psi, then the tyre will allow you to EASILY go down steps and VERY easily ride along a railway track over the sleepers. Having even a simple suspension on a recumbent allows you to ride over corrugated bitumen roads for hours on end without discomfort of arms, wrists, feet and especially bottom, If you are 110 kg.

On my 1,000 km ride across Tibet on a Softrider V1, air rear sock, disk brakes, 1.9" town & country semi slicks at 65 psi(max) handle the new and corrugated bitumen REALLY well, and was perfect.

On the VERY CORRUGATED 75 km dirt road to the Mt Everest base camp (max speed of the support 4WD was 18 KPH before the wheels lost all contact with the road), the front suspension 20 mm travel was not enough even with the tyres at 35 psi and I lost traction at 8 kph on the really rough sections and 12 kph on the milder sections (in Australia I could get up to 18 kph on rough corrugations before traction was lost)

I upgraded the rear suspension to air from the spring unit after contacting a 40 year rider who did the same trip as me in April 2009 on a $10,000 All Carbon Fibre mountain bike with high end shocks and gave up after 1.5 days due to the vibrations and back pain, i.e the same time as me (58 years), who had to concentrate hard to maintain a reasonable speed, AND listen for 4WDs as there were too many close calls and having to ride OFF the road into rock covered ditches twice as 4WDs took up ALL of the road and more.

There was a group of 5, 22 to 27 year old on mountain bikes doing the same trip, and the one with a rigid rear end and suspension seat post gave up approx at the same location as me and the second with a chinese daul suspension gave up 20 km from Mt Everest. The others had $5K to $10K bikes, but still had to ride 30% of the time standing up.

On the 2nd to last day of riding, which was 3.5 Km vertical decent over 50 Km (average 7%), I would descend at approx 20 KPH faster due to my bike, +30 kg weight, and semi slicks compared to block pattern dirt tyres.
This section of road is all concrete except for 5 km, so the disk brakes were not really required, BUT allows you to get up to 90 kph on a straight section with out worries, AND came in handy when dogs suddenly jump out at you, No bites thank goodness.

If you intend to curb hop a lot and go on dirt roads then go for 1.9" to 2.1" tyres, or if ONLY on good bit roads then 1.25" high pressure slicks for a faster (approx 1 to 2 KPH) tyre

 

[JonB]

Super Slim wrote: John B,
If you go to 1.9" tyres at 65 psi, then the tyre will allow you to EASILY go down steps and VERY easily ride along a railway track over the sleepers. Having even a simple suspension on a recumbent allows you to ride over corrugated bitumen roads for hours on end without discomfort of arms, wrists, feet and especially bottom, If you are 110 kg.

I have 47mm tires, which is 1.9" I run them at 100 psi (front) and at 70 psi (rear) to roll easier (because one is just marathon, the other tire is marathon plus. But at Spezi 2010 i tried a trike with hard tires, but it handled the curb much softer than mine. I know i can lower the pressure, but i dont want to, since that increases the rolling resistance.

 

[John Tolhurst]

JonB,
Put the 70psi tire on the front and the 100 on the back, then add an airshock to the back. Just something you could try.

 

[JonB]

John Tolhurst wrote: JonB,
Put the 70psi tire on the front and the 100 on the back, then add an airshock to the back. Just something you could try.

I suppose i could try that.

 

[KenM]

In terms of comfort and range the Sofrider is a vast improvement over my conventional Giant Hybrid! The longest day ride I did on the Giant was 120km but anything over 80km took me at least several days to recover from a sore backside and neck & shoulder stiffness. I've done over 100km on the Sofrider numerous time with little stiffness or pain at all. The other day I did 170km on the Sofrider and while my legs, and to a lesser extent my arms, were tired at the end, I had to really focus to notice any stiffness at all the next day. Its looking good for my participation in the "Round the Bay" 210km ride in October. http://www.bv.com.au/great-rides/20005/

As for the suspension, there are times that I think it cold be softer but I'm sure that would be at the expense of some of the bike's precision. I like the relatively low friction of the 100psi tyres combined with the suspension for softening things like towelled gaps in concrete paths and the ends of driveways, etc. I've occasionally taken my bike down a flight of stairs a few steps longer than that on the video, and while I could easily ride, I put my feet down and partially walk it down relieving a bit of the weight. In either case you could really only call it tolerable, rather than comfortable.
Cheers,
-Ken