• Easier to set up and take down – The old tent had three fiberglass poles that fed through sleeves in the top of the tent. The poles were constantly getting hung up as they passed through the sleeves.
• Better ventilation – The old tent had only two mesh areas: the top of the tent and the door of the tent. If the door of the tent was closed due to rain, and if the rain fly were attached, there was very little air movement within the tent.
• Smaller pack size – The old tent was about 26 inches in length, packed.
• Footprint/Groundcloth – The old tent didn’t have this (I could have used a tarp, of course, but never did).
• Lighter – The old tent weighed 5 pounds 11 ounces packed.
• Two-Person Size – Although I primarily wanted the tent for solo use, I didn’t want to be cramped for space. The dome tent is a two-person tent (I assume), but the octagonal shape didn’t seem to make the optimal use of space.
• Needs to be freestanding.

After shopping for tents for awhile, and considering models from various manufacturers, I settled on the Eureka Pinnacle Pass 2XTA. Here are the factors that led me to choose this tent:

• It’s a two-person tent, with 36.5 sq. ft. of space. I’m not sure how this compares with the dome tent, though the space is rectangular rather than octagonal, so should be better.
• It only used two poles instead of three, and aluminum instead of fiberglass.
• It has two large doors, rather than one.
• It has mesh on three sides of the tent, so ventilation should be better.
• The pack size was specified as 6″ x 18.5″.
• It is specified with a “minimum weight” of 4 lbs. 11 oz.
• It has two vestibules for outside storage that’s still protected from rain.
• It only has two short sleeves, and clips for attaching the tent to the poles, so setup/takedown should be easier and quicker.
• It is freestanding.
• The price was reasonable: $159.90 list.
• Eureka offers a “Floor Saver” footprint/groundcloth; there may be cheaper alternatives, but this one is sized to fit the tent.

I purchased the tent from CampingTeam.com on 05-23-2007, it shipped on May 25th, and I received it on May 30th. The total cost was $131.89: $109.95 for the tent, $9.99 for the footprint, and $11.95 for shipping. Eureka also offered a $20 rebate, which I sent in and received within a few weeks.

Setup is pretty easy:

• Lay out the groundcloth.
• Spread the tent on the groundcloth.
• Anchor corners if it’s windy.
• Assemble poles.
• Put the rounded end of the pole in one of the sleeves.
• Bend pole and attach the other end to the pin on the opposite corner.
• Repeat with second pole.
• Attach tent at intersection of the two poles.
• Attach clips.
• Add rainfly (note that the “!” symbol on the fly is at the opposite end of the “!” symbol on the tent).
• Connect the four corners of the fly to the tent.
• Attach fly to the poles with the velcro ties.
• Anchor the tent using the supplied stakes.
• Add additional guy-out lines if expecting storms.

Notes & analysis:

• The tent seams are pre-taped on the bathtub floor, which is about 6-8 inches in height.
• The two doors are both full-size, one on each side of the tent. There are two zippers per door – one on the bottom, and one on the side/top.
• The inside top of the tent provides attachment points for an optional “attic”.
• The inside of the tent has two mesh pockets at one end of the tent for storing small items during the night.
• Airflow with the fly installed is fair. Some air gets under the fly, but it’s really not enough, even with a moderate wind. There’s no easy way to adjust this. I was able to roll up one end of the fly and tuck the buckles into the guy-out tabs, but this didn’t really work very well.
• The fly doors and tent doors have nifty tie-back loops, but the fly door is so large that it’s difficult to tie it all back neatly. There is only one tie-back for the fly door, but two tie-backs for the mesh tent door (which is smaller). That doesn’t make much sense.
• The fly door is so large that it lets rain in with the fly door fully open. It’s be nice if there were a way to half-open the fly door so that you were protected, but could still see out, but there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to do this.
• When the fly doors are fully zipped closed, the end of the zipper is way out at the far point of the vestibule, close to the ground. This makes it very difficult to open the fly without half-crawling out of the tent itself.
• The two vestibules are not really big enough to cover a bicycle. They’d probably be good for packs, or as a convenient place to store dirty shoes.
• The weight of the tent plus groundcloth is 6 pounds 1 ounce, which is a bit disappointing. I’d hoped for something closer to 5 pounds.

Conclusion: This seems to be a good, but not great, tent. I was very pleased with the ease of setup and teardown, and I’m very happy with the size of the pack. I’m less pleased with the weight, and with the airflow.

I’ve tested the tent in various conditions, including heavy wind, heavy rain, and even during a tornado warning, and I remained dry and comfortable. I haven’t yet used the tent in cold weather.














]]> http://www.recumbum.com/2008/07/eureka-pinnacle-pass-2xta-review/feed/ 3 http://www.recumbum.com/2008/02/django-kickstand/ http://www.recumbum.com/2008/02/django-kickstand/#comments Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:56:09 +0000 RecumBum http://www.recumbum.com/2008/02/django-kickstand/ When I purchased my Burley Django recumbent, it didn’t come with a kickstand. For an all-purpose bike, I think that’s just silly. Why lay a bike on the ground or have to hunt around for something to lean it against? Sure, there’s a weight penalty, but unless you’re racing, what does it really matter?

So one of the first things I added to the bike was a kickstand. The one I purchased was the Greenfield Stabilizer Kickstand (mostly because that’s what my local bike shop had in stock).

The kickstand is a two-piece assembly – the kickstand mechanism itself, plus a mechanism that clamps to the rear triangle.

Problem is, the Django doesn’t have a rear triangle. Burley’s solution was a kickstand adapter, basically a flat strip of metal bent at a right angle and attached to the rear drop-out.

So, you take the clamp part of the Greenfield kickstand, throw it away, and attached the bottom part to the kickstand adapter.

This works OK, for the most part. I’ve had some trouble with the kickstand wanting to rotate on the flat plate, but that’s easily adjusted.

Also, the kickstand is just a smidge too long, leaving the bike just a bit too upright, and vulnerable to a gust of wind knocking it over. I’ve had that happen a few times, and it’s frustrating, but for the most part, if you pay attention to how you’re parking the bike, the kickstand works reasonable well.

Calhoun Cycle offers the kickstand alone, or as a combo with both the kickstand and adapter.

Click the photos on the right for details (please forgive the grunginess of the bike – between melting snow and mud, the bike’s been pretty hard to keep clean lately).

I came across the Champion C9 “Active Performance” seamless series on sale at my local Target store, regular $6.99, on sale for $3.48, which is a pretty decent deal. They don’t appear to have them listed on their web site, but the ones shown on the right (“Ex Officio” brand, from Hostel Shoppe) are similar, except much more expensive.

The ones from Target come in three styles, brief, boxer, and boxer brief. I wait until they go on sale (typically several times a year), then grab a few. I’ve been wearing these for the last couple years, and they work fine – no chafing, decent wicking, and good support – much better than plain old cotton underwear.

So if you have a Target store in your area, check ‘em out. I’m not sure how long they’re on sale…

• The fat tires work very well for softening out the rough surface of gravel roads. Compared to the j-j-j-jarring r-r-r-ride I was getting on my 100 PSI tires, these feel positively cushy.

• Riding on paved roads, I run my my middle chainring 95% of the time, except for big uphills or big downhills. For gravel roads, I need to be more willing to drop into the small chainring, and not try to muscle up the hills.

• I didn’t really have any trouble climbing hills, as long as there was something of a rut for me to follow (and once I learned to gear down quicker). There’s always the chance of spinning out on a hill, but it hasn’t happened yet.

• The recumbent seems to handle the gravel just fine. I never really felt in danger of going down, though control can get a bit squirrelly in loose small gravel or when there’s a solid layer of bigger stones. The worst section I found was a half-mile of fresh gravel – loose, with some fairly big rocks.

• Speed is lower. On my first ride (15 miles) I had an average of about 12 MPH. On my second ride (25 miles), I had an average of 12.8 MPH. Then I realized that I’d forgotten to recalibrate my cyclocomputer when I swapped tires. I did a roll-out, and found that my front tire is about 4.5% larger than it was before. So I wasn’t quite as slow as I first thought, with revised speeds of 12.5 and 13.4, respectively.

• The back tire can have some trouble with bigger rocks, kicking to the side once in a while as it hits them. Not a big deal, but it’s an odd feeling the first few times it happens.

• I wonder about the bike’s durability over longer rides (and longer periods). Even with the softer tires, there’s still a fair amount of shock transmitted to the bike. Over time this may lead to component failures – wheels, spokes, the rack, fender, seat, and eventually the frame. Am I shortening the life of the bike by subjecting it to such a beating? Probably.

• Would suspension help? It may be possible to swap out the rigid front fork for a suspension fork, but is it worth doing? Rear suspension would probably be more significant (since more weight is on the rear wheel), but that would require a new bike, as a retrofit is unlikely.

• Less traffic: Sunday, riding about 20 miles of gravel, I saw a grand total of eight motor vehicles – three passing me, and five coming towards me.

• Cars more considerate (or at least more careful): Most cars on gravel roads seem to move at a slower pace, and take care when passing, some are even considerate enough to slow down to minimize the dust they’re spewing.

• Speaking of dust, there can be a lot of if. This will mean more care needs to be taken in keeping the bike clean and well-lubricated.

• I haven’t ridden in the rain yet, but I imagine that it turns many roads into a soupy, sloppy mess, with ruts and rocks hidden by water, and mud coating the tires, frame, drivetrain, and seat (and probably the rider).

Overall, I see the ability to ride gravel as a huge plus. It should certainly make planning a route easier – not being limited to paved roads increases the number of possible routes by an incredible amount. In my immediate vicinity, perhaps 50% of the roads are paved, but the further out into the country you go, the amount of pavement declines. Why limit myself to just paved roads when I can have them all?

In the two rides I did last weekend, I never got more than ten miles or so from home, yet I covered roads I’d never ridden, or even driven, before. Imagine, finding something totally new only a few miles from my front door!

The key realization was that I could switch to fat tires without messing up my existing tire setup. How? By using the wheels off my EZ-Sport.

The EZ-Sport has the exact same wheels as the Django: 20″ front and 26″ rear, with an 11-32 8-Speed cassette. So, if I took the wheels off the EZ-Sport, changed the tires from the stock Kenda Kwests to something fatter and softer, I could easily change the Django back and forth from fast to soft tires.

And a further realization, that I already had a fat 26″ tire (from my Katy Trail ride) and tubes, made the decision even easier.

I went ahead and pulled the rear wheel off the EZ-Sport, swapped the Kenda Kwest for the Kenda Komfort (26″ x 1.95″ (50-559), 40-65 PSI), and used one of the tubes I had lying around. Unfortunately, the EZ-Sport was set up for Schrader tubes, while the Django uses Presta. I used the tube anyway, aired it up, and all seemed well. Then a few minutes later, while I was busy with other tasks, I heard a loud explosion from behind me, and turned back to find the tire blown off the rim, and the tube shredded near the valve. Hmmm, I only pumped it up to 40 PSI, so the pressure wasn’t too high. Must have pinched the tube as I was putting it on. Sigh.

I’d also noticed, while I was putting the wheel back on the bike, that the rear brake pads were worn down to nubs and needed to be replaced. Rather than make a trip to the nearest bike shop (12 miles distant), I ran to the local Wal-Mart (4 miles away).

They didn’t have my size of brake pads, but I did pick up a cheap 20″ tire for the front wheel, along with a 20″ tube. Unfortunately, all they had was Schrader valves. So I went ahead and bought a 26″ Schrader tube as well. Might as well have the two tires match.

The 20″ tire is sold under the “Bell” brand name, but the nameplate on the tire is actually “Heng Shin Tire”. The box identified it as a “Freestyle” tire, but I didn’t really care about that. I chose it because it seemed to be midway between a mountain tire and a road tire – some tread, but no huge knobbies.

Got back home, installed the new tubes and tires, and all was well except for those darn brakes pads. So I had to make a run to the bike shop after all. They set me up with some Avid Wrangler 2 pads. Once home, I got those installed and adjusted, and they seem to work fine.

I did run into one problem with the front tire: after installation it was rubbing against the fender – not enough to stop the wheel from turning, but enough to cause some friction and make some noise. No amount of fiddling with adjustments seemed to improve the situation, so ultimately I just took off the fender entirely. So now I have a fender on the rear, but none on the front. Oh well.

Once everything was all back together, I took the bike out for a short spin, and all seemed well – a very cushy ride.

In the picture on the right, you can see the big difference between the road and off-road tires. Question: How much will this affect my speed? I’ve read conflicting reports, ranging from “none” to “huge”, but I’m anticipating at least a 10% hit. Guess I’ll need to run a test at some point.

But for now, I need to do some longer rides on some rougher roads, and see how well these fat tires really work!

It features five super-bright red LEDs that function in six modes: all on solid, all flash fast, all flash slow, and three modes that flash the LEDs in various patterns and speeds. I generally use the “flash fast” or “flash slow” modes.

The LEDs are quite bright and visible in both darkness and on overcast days. They tend to wash out in direct sunlight, but that’s a problem with most small LED lights.

Battery usage has been quite good. It used two AAA batteries, and I’m still on the first set of batteries. Ruggedness has also been excellent. The light has fallen off my bike twice at speed (through no fault of the light itself), and still works perfectly.

Mounting the light onto my bike has been the main problem I’ve experienced (click on the pictures on the right for close-up views). Initially, I mounted the light (using the included clamp) onto my seatback, and this worked with no problem for a number of months. Then I changed to a new rack bag, and had to move the light.

In my first attempt, I used an existing mounting bracket on the rack, which had been designed to hold a rear reflector. I bent the bracket and twisted it 90 degrees to mount the Bell tail light. The first time I rode with this configuration, the light rattled in its clip and made a good deal of noise. I quieted it by inserting a piece of rubber inner tube under the clip. This worked fine for about a month, until I passed over a railroad track and heard a clatter behind me, and looked back to find the light on the road. The metal of the bracket had apparently been stressed by the bend and twist, and had ultimately failed.

For my next attempt, I removed the broken metal bracket, screwed a wooden dowel to the top of the rack, and attached the light to the rack using its clamp (as if the dowel were a seatpost). This appeared to be functional and rugged, and worked fine for about a week. Then once again I heard a racket behind me and found that the light had again ended up on the road in pieces. The clamp had slipped off the top of the dowel.

One final tweak – I drilled two small holes in the top of the rack, on either side of the dowel, then passed a tie-wrap through the holes and over the light clamp. This should keep the clamp from lifting off top of the dowel.

Will this hold? It certainly looks like it should. With two batteries in the light, and the light hanging off the back of the rack, there’s apparently a fair amount of mass bouncing up and down every time I hit a bump. So eventually something will have to give. Either the tie-wrap will break, or the plastic clamp, or the plastic clip on the back of the light will give. But it’s cheap enough to replace when it does.

(And yes, I know that I have the light mounted upside-down, but I wanted the switch to be on my left-hand side, and besides, I don’t really see that it makes any difference in functionality.)

Bottom line: I recommend the Bell Night Shield as a good-quality tail light at a very reasonable price. I’m sure there are better lights, and there may even be cheaper lights, but the Night Shield is readily available and certainly a decent choice.

I have an unusual situation which makes finding a bag rather difficult. Whoever assembled my bike didn’t install the rack properly. Burley sold a rack installation kit that included two extender arms that allow a rack to be fitted onto Burley recumbents (see the first picture on the right).

My rack installation is missing these extender arms, and the rack is instead mounted directly to the rear dropouts (see the second picture on the right).

At first glance this doesn’t seem to be a big deal, but this minor screw-up has a ripple effect on lots of things:

• The rack is too far forward, putting it too near the seat. When I push back against the seat while pedaling, I can sometimes feel my back hitting the top of the rack.

• With the rack too far forward, the seatback extends over the rack, limiting the height of items at the front of the rack.

• The rear fender is out of whack, rotated too far forward, leaving the rear mudflap too high.

The main problem with this setup is that it limits the size of bag I can put on this rack. With the Nashbar Bag, the bag basically set on the rear two-thirds of the rack, with the tail end hanging over the back of the rack.

Nearly any other trunk bag would have the same problem.

My first attempt to solve this problem used a Bushwhacker Sedona Rack Mountable Fanny Pack. It is a flat bag with both velcro strips (to attach it to a rack), and a belt (to attach it around your waist). This seems like a good idea at first, but doesn’t work so well in practice. I suspect that it works just fine as a fanny pack, but it doesn’t work very well as a rack bag. The problem is the belt, which simple gets in the way, and I couldn’t find any way to get it out of the way, short of cutting it off entirely. And since the rest of the bag was just one large formless space (which I didn’t really care for), I decided to ditch this bag.

My second attempt to solve this problem used two seat wedge bags. I mounted one on top of the rack, and the other against the fender behind the seat. I actually liked this approach pretty well. The fender bag held seldom-used items such as tubes, tire irons, and a patch kit, and the one on the rack held everything else. The problem was that the one of the rack was too small to hold much, so I would have had to buy another, bigger bag.

My third and final approach was to use a bag I found at Walmart, a Hydration Fanny Pack from a company called Outdoor Products. The bag consists of a fanny pack with a large zippered main compartment, a zippered pocket on the front, two extra water bottles (with a padded holder for each), and a belt to go around the waist. To attach it to the bike, I cut two small slits in the back of the bag, ran a velcro strap through it, then used that to strap it to the top of the rack. I ran the belt through the slots on each side of the seat and looped them back around the back of the seat. This provides a secure mount for the bag. If I decide to keep this bag, I may cut off the belt and add more velcro straps to attach it directly to the back of the seat.

This bag gives me extra liquid carrying capacity, and doesn’t interfere with the existing water bottle cage on the back of the seat. I did have to move the blinker from the seat back to the rear of the rack, but this is really a better location anyway.

The storage compartment is almost too large (it’s spec’d as 230 cubic inches), since it’s just one continuous space. But an inner pocket, as well as the front pocket, should help keep things organized. There’s also a bit of rack space available, if I needed to strap on something such as a jacket.

In all, I think this is a pretty nifty solution. It was certainly inexpensive (less than $10) for the bag, and should be reasonably robust and flexible. I’ll run it awhile and see how it’s working out in a few weeks.

I selected this bag because it looked like it would have plenty of room, but primarily because it was on sale ($15.99). Since then, the bag has been on the bike full time, and has served me well.

Here’s what I like about this bag:

• I like the color scheme: black and hi-vis yellow – it’s very striking.
• It has a fairly large capacity (spec’d as 717 to 905 cubic inches).
• I like the hidden chamber under the lid of the bag; that’s a great out-of-the-way place to store things you don’t need that often, like tubes.
• I like the external pockets. I used one for tools, one for snacks, and one for my cell phone and keys.
• The main compartment has a single divider panel that can be moved. I normally set it up so that there’s a large space (about 3/4) up front for clothing and whatnot, with a smaller space (1/4) in the rear for miscellaneous stuff such as my camera and wallet.

Here’s what I don’t like about this bag:

• The sides of the bag are not rigid. Over time, especially with the internal divider removed, the bag tends to sag and collapse into a floppy, mushy mess.
• The bag is too long for my rack (to be fair, this is not the bag’s fault, but the fault of my mis-installed rack), and extends over the end of my rack, covering my rear reflector.
• When unzipping the main compartment, it’s too easy to open the expansion zipper by mistake, since they are so close to each other.
• The external pockets tend to droop over the sides and end of the bag.
• I think the bag’s a little heavy, at 1 pound, 2 ounces.

In the end, although I love the color and the carrying capacity, I’ve grown to dislike the way that it flows and sags around my rack. I think it just looks sloppy, and I’d prefer a cleaner, more streamlined look. I plan to keep this bag and use it for times when I need to haul a lot of stuff, but I want to find a better, more compact bag for everyday use.

Bottom line: Good bag for a great price.

On a recumbent, it’s very difficult to look behind you. You can’t just look over your shoulder, as you can on an upright bike, because on a recumbent you’re usually in a reclined position, and your head just doesn’t turn that way.

You can either use a handlebar-mounted mirror, or a mirror that attaches to your helmet or sunglasses. I opted for the latter.

I purchased a Third Eye Eyeglass Mirror shortly after getting my first recumbent. In the beginning, I wasn’t particularly pleased with it. Eyeglass mirrors in general are a bit finicky to set up, and take some getting used to. That was certainly the case with me, but after a few rides I began to grow accustomed to it, and now it’s second nature. In fact, if I forget the mirror, I feel quite vulnerable.

After several years of use, the clip that attaches to the eyeglass arm broke (click image for larger view). Of course, this happened just days before my Katy Trail Ride, so I had to scramble to replace it.

I checked out the Take A Look mirror, which is a similar design, except made of metal instead of plastic, and I also considered a variety of helmet-mounted mirrors. In the end, I purchased another Third Eye Eyeglass Mirror. It was the least expensive of the bunch ($11 compared to $15 for the Take A Look), and I was comfortable with it. I didn’t know if a new mirror would require some acclimation time or not, so I decided to stick with what I knew, despite the product having failed on me.

However, during the Katy Trail Ride, the new mirror broke as well. I was letting me nephew use it, and his sunglasses had larger arms, which may have had something to do with it, but the mirror failed in exactly the same way as the first one.

Since Third Eye offers replacement parts, I sent the two damaged pieces back to the manufacturer (along with $8 for the parts plus shipping), and am now awaiting their response.

Pros:

• Highly adjustable, both vertically and horizontally
• Very stable view (little or no road vibration transferred to the mirror)
• Mirror is very clear and distortion-free
• Wide-angle view requires only small movement of head
• Repairs are available

Cons:

• The eyeglass clip is the weak point (two failures in a short period of time)
• Fits skinny eyeglass arms better than thick eyeglass arms
• Easy to accidentally knock out of alignment
• Repairs, though available, are not cheap (over 50% of purchase price)
• No product warranty is offered

Bottom line: I give the Third Eye Eyeglass Mirror a qualified recommendation. It has worked very well for me, despite having failed twice within a short period of time. I wish it were a bit more rugged, but other than that it’s a very useful product.

Since then, I’ve put another 2100 miles on the tires, so I estimate that the tires have around 3000 miles on them.

I purchased new tires in March, but hadn’t put them on until now, since the old ones were still working fine. However, with a big trip coming up, I finally sat down and put on the new rubber.

The front tire is a Primo Comet (20″x1.35″ (37-407), 100 PSI). The rear tire is a Primo Racer (26″x1.25″ (32-559), 100 PSI). I wasn’t sure what tires were best to replace them with. I read some reviews, and considered various brands, but in the end I just ordered the same Primo tires. They were inexpensive ($18 each), and are light and fast. I suspect that they’re not as rugged as other brands, but I’ve never had a flat, so they must be good enough.

As I prepared to change the tires, I realized just how worn the tread on the old tires was, particularly on the rear tire (on the right in the picture below). And as I got the old tires off the rims, I discovered that the outsides of the sidewalls really were rather dry and crumbly (though the inside of the tire was still supple).

I managed to get the old tires off, and the new tires on, without too much trouble, even though I’ve never done this before. I replaced the rear tube, but kept the front one (I thought I had one on hand, but it was the wrong size). I may replace it later, or I just may keep the old one as long as it’s holding air.

The new tires have black sidewalls (compared to the old tire’s “natural” sidewalls), which I think looks pretty snazzy.

Tread Wear on Old Primo Tires

Old Primo Sidewalls

New Primo Racer Tread