From: rwt@ohm.york.ac.uk (5/20/91)
Date: 5/17/91
Subject: Trice Review 

The Trice - a brief review.
 
After posting something to the net on a comparison between the Trice
and other recumbents, I was asked to write a short review of the
beast. Well a couple of hours into Sunday afternoon and this is it. I
have made a quick sketch to illustrate the review - the file after
this one is a straight Postscript version, diagrams and all
included. If anyone has any more questions, then please do ask me,
either directly or through the mailing list. I have no connection with
Peter Ross (who designs and builds these), but this is a highly biased
review - I like it (the Trice - not the review). If anyone wants to
reprint and use this review (or part of it) then they are welcome. I
would appreciate a copy of it if you do.
 
I should really begin with another minor confession. I have had a
lifelong fascination for things mechanical and especially cycles (note
the care with which I avoid the bi-word). I have also been very
fortunate in my place of work, and have always worked somewhere within
comfortable bike commuting distance. This has meant that I can indulge
myself - not having to pay through the nose to run a car to and from
work generates some big surpluses! I currently run a pair of
Cannondales (tourer and mtb), the Trice and a Pashley Unicycle. But
you tire of this - so on to the review.
 
I'll start by describing the construction and then get on to my
experience setting up and riding the beast.  Measurements are
generally Imperial given the destination of most of this mail, but no
doubt the odd "continental" measure has snuck in.
 
By way of background, Peter Ross is an ex(?) Aerospace Engineer who
now builds bicycles full time from a base in Cornwall, England. I
believe that he builds both the Trice (which I am just about to
review) and the Kingcycle, a rather nippy two wheel recumbent. The
trice is available directly from him, but I think that it is also
imported into the US by a company called Ecocycle.  Addresses at the
end.
 
The Trice is a low slung, `reverse' architecture. (There are two
wheels at the front and one at the back - not so amazing for readers
of this newsgroup, but it sure attracts interest outside). The nearest
most of the Great British Public have come to this is the ill fated
Sinclair C5. This brings it to a wide 36" front wheel to front wheel,
and about 80" in length.A fixed fibre glass seat is slung between the
two front wheels, and velcro fastenings hold down a cushion running
the length of the seat. The seat is structural - before you fit it,
you wonder whether the Trice will ever support your weight.  After
fitting there are no doubts about its strength.  Although the cushion
may be removed quickly, the seat was my first target for
customisation; a small hole to let any water that might gather out!
 
Given the fixed seating position, the only way that you can adjust for
body length is moving the pedals either towards you or away from
you. The upper 12" or so of the front frame slides into the lower
frame. A hexagonal bolt holds the frame in place. As the frame moves
through its full range, links in the chain must be added/removed (4
links per inch of movement). This works well - I am just under 6', my
wife 5' 5" and we both feel comfortable, leaving lots of room at
either side for other heights.
 
Steering is by a set of modified handlebars mounted under the
seat. You turn the front wheels (20" x 1 3/8", 55psi tourer, 85 psi
speed) via two plastic ball joints and a short track rod. The rear
wheel (700 x 23C - about 27" x 1 1/2", 85 psi both models) is
fixed. The frame is mainly high tensile steel although I believe that
parts of it are Reynolds 531 tubing.
  
Braking is primarily through a pair of Sturmey Archer hub brakes on
the front wheels. Although they may be adjusted independently, they
are driven from a single brake lever on the right hand side of the
handlebars. The rear brake is primarily a parking brake and has a
locking lever. Pull it to lock into one of two positions, a small
catch releases it.
 
Rear wheel drive is through a chain of incredible length (actually
about 160", but when you first fit it you wonder where is it all going
to go!). The chain ring (in my case a triple Suntour, 32 42 52) is
mounted on a short upright on the central strut. The chain runs the
length of the cycle, feeding through two nylon wheels and round the
rear block (6 speed, 28-14 teeth). Once properly adjusted, the chain
has no tendency to "rub" on exposed frame, cable etc... The standard
gears are Suntour Accushift. It took a couple of weeks of riding to
get the cables stretched out, but they were easily indexed.
 
Overall the Trice is well designed and built. I bought a complete
machine, although it needed about 4 hours of assembly - very
straightforward. There are no specialised tools required (for the
record, Peter Ross specifies 4 open ended spanners 8-15mm, one
adjustable spanner, 2 box spanners (8mm and 14mm), one medium
screwdriver, one Philips/cross-head, a couple of Allen keys and a
chain link adaptor - you probably could get away with less). I had to
replace the front changer (wrong type for the clearances involved). I
believe that Peter Ross had just started using some new components, so
possibly this had snuck through the quality control.
 
Enough of the construction and down to the riding.
 
The riding position is low and comfortable. Getting in and out of the
Trice is easy, although it takes a little time to become used to the
toe clips. Start and the acceleration is surprising. The riding
position, laid back with the pedals slightly raised from the
horizontal allows you to push efficiently. Once going, the Trice
appears slower than a conventional diamond frame. This is an illusion
- I had to fit a speedo to convince myself that I was moving at a
decent pace. On the flat without a wind I have noticed a 5%
improvement in my commute/circuit times. With a head wind it is a
different story. York is flat, very flat and there is often little
protection from a strong headwind. On the Trice, the effect of wind
(slow-down and buffeting) is noticeably less than on a safety
bicycle. Uphill it is slower than a safety (you can't stand on the
pedals), but still very comfortable. Just drop into a lower gear and
away you go. I have not yet had to use my little ring in anger,
although given the gently undulating York plain this is not
surprising. The largest hill is barely 1/4 mile at 1 in 6.  The range
of "unused" gears gives me lots of hope for the future though!
 
In terms of comfort the Trice is far superior to a diamond frame. A
5-10 mile journey at a moderate 2-15 Mph leaves me more relaxed than
the same on my tourer/mtb. The riding position does appear to use
different muscles, and my efficiency improved noticeably over the
first two weeks.
 
Vision is open to the front, although restricted to the rear. I have a
side mirror and use it all the time. The combination of riding
position and the somewhat high seat (which supports both your back and
your head) makes it difficult (in reality no different to a car) to
look back.
 
One note about the cycling position. As supplied, the seat provides
full support for yourhead. If you intend to wear one of those helmets
with a "long back" it might be uncomfortable unless you modify the
cushion. I wear a relatively elderly "Kiwi" (about 5 years old) and am
comfortable in it.
 
I was apprehensive at first about the riding position - would other
cars see me or not? This has not turned out to be a problem. The
bright orange seat, a rather dinky flag and the width of the Trice
make drivers pay attention. In many ways, I think that the Trice is
more visible on the open road than a conventional framed cycle.
 
Maneuverability is great, the Trice turns quickly. I have tried but
not succeeded in pushing it beyond a slide in tight maneuvers. The
University of York has several cyclable trails, some of which require
very tight turns.  The Trice can whip round them far faster than a
bike.
 
Load carrying is adequate. There is no room for the "low rider"
panniers and handlebar bags seen on safety bicycles. I have fixed a
rear Blackburn carrier and only notice the weight (rather than any
change in handling) when loaded with two panniers and a
saddle-bag. There must be some difference, but as I do not (can not?)
travel more than about 20mph with a fully laden Trice, I have yet to
hit it! We are just about to buy a trailer (probably a Burley Light)
to take a new baby + shopping. I will tell everyone about mixing the
two when we get it (trailer and trice, not baby and shopping).
 
I have not had much experience in the wet (2/3 days : who said it
always rains in the UK?). I originally bought mudguards, but found
that (a) the front mudguards wobbled around a little too much for my
liking and (b) they were unnecessary. Water comes off the tyres to
either side of you. I have retained the rear guard to keep head,
brakes and saddle-bag clean.
 
The Trice is noisier than a conventional cycle. This is all chain
noise (it runs over two polythene wheels with Glacier bearings). The
noise is not loud or unpleasant and you soon get used to it.
 
Crashes - yes I have had two. 
 
The first was very minor. About one week after I took delivery, a
plastic ball joint split, leaving me still in control - mostly. The
Trice is designed so that the wheels track straight ahead if
unconnected and it was not difficult to get home. Peter Ross was
extremely surprised to hear about this - apparently this is the first
time it has happened in 90+ machines. He replaced it very quickly and
I have had no problems since.

The second was more serious. I was travelling between 25 and 30 Mph
and was crowded over by a car (first time ever and never since). I was
forced first into a pot hole and then a ditch. The Trice turned on its
side, but I was unscathed, if a trifle petrified. I recently saw mail
from a couple of riders who crashed their two wheel recumbents and
suffered injuries to their feet and ankles. This appeared to be
connected with their inability to get their feet out of the
toe-straps. The twin front wheels protect you to a much greater extent
on the Trice. I ended up with a slightly lumpy front wheel (easily
trued) and a dislike of Ford Capri drivers. If I had been on an
upright, it might have been more serious.
 
The only minor bugbear is the width. It is about the same width as a
conventional tricycle - 36". There is a narrow track version
available. This prevents the use of front mudguards (not necessary
anyway in my humble opinion, the water doesn't spray to the side) and
puts the front wheels "close" (PR's words not mine) to your hands. I
selected the "tourer". Our rear yard gate was the first obstacle, 3"
too wide (*&&^%^&^%$). Not a problem now - the Trice is light (about
35lb I think, not much heavier), picking it up & swivelling it through
the gate is not difficult.
 
The major problem came with the University authorities - well not
really authorities, the lab superintendent of our Physics'
department. Historically he doesn't like members of our department
anyway, and temperamentally he is the worst type of Luddite, lost in
the middle ages of large cars and wide open expanses of parking
space. Some weeks into the acquisition he noticed the trike and having
nothing better to do, decided it was taking up too much space in the
bike sheds. (The fact that it took up the same space as several
conventional trikes did not move him). Subsequently he has been
running a "dump the Trice" campaign. I am holding out. This probably
says more about the amount of work he has to do than anything else,
but it does represent the only hostile reaction I have met.
 
To conclude, I am very happy with the Trice. It is well thought out
and well constructed. It is comfortable to cycle, safe and a great
buy. I do not normally use it to get in and out of the city proper.
York an old city, never designed with the car in mind. The motor
traffic is very bad and very slow, a "through the gaps" approach on a
mtb works much better. I do use it anytime I do not expect to spend
significant amounts of time waiting in stationary traffic. I hope to
tour Yorkshire & Northumberland sometime next year - the new member of
the household (no not the Trice) won't be quite ready this
summer. Until then, I will keep up a regular 15 mile fun circuit and
the occasional 70 mile day tour.
 
On to modifications. I will fit a half fairing - probably modified
from the Zzipper "Experimenters" kit. It will be interesting to see
what kind of difference it makes both to comfort and speed. I'll let
you all know.
 
Finally cost. In the UK, I think that the Touring model of the Trice
comes in at just under 700 pounds on the road. The Speed version is a
little (5%) more expensive. Extras that have to be purchased include a
mirror, triple chain ring (rather than the standard double),
lightweight rack, mudguards (only necessary on the rear). These prices
may have changed slightly. If anyone wants, I can probably dig up the
latest price list.
 
 
Richard Taylor, May 1991
 
PS : If anyone is coming up/across/down to York for the June Cycle  
Rally then give me a buzz/mail.
 
 
Useful Addresses
 
Peter Ross, Crystal Engineering
Copper Hill House
Buller Hill, Redruth
Cornwall TR16 6BM
England
tel : (44) 0209 218868
 
Ecocycle (US Importer)
Don't have an address, but Dwight McKay <mckay@gimli.bio.purdue.edu>  
does (hope you don't mind Dwight).
 
Karl Abbe, Zzip Designs
PO Box 14
Davenport, CA 95017
USA
(01) (408) 425 8650
 
Zzip in Europe (for recumbents)
 
Pichler Radtecknik
Steiner. 23
7500 Karlsruhe 1
Germany
() 721 376 166
 
******************************************************************
* Dr R W Taylor              tel : (44) 904 432351  fax : 432335 *
* Adaptive Systems Group     email : rwt@uk.ac.york.ohm          *
* University of York, England                                    *
******************************************************************
 
From: mckay@gimli.bio.purdue.edu
To: JGilliss@aol.com
Cc: hpv@zippy.sonoma.EDU
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 19:08:47 -0500
Subject: Re: A question or two 

> In the 94-95 Encycleopedia, Trice lists a US outlet, Ecocycle. Can anyone
> provide the phone and/or address for Ecocycle? Also, can anyone comment pro
> or con on the Trice (or a comparative cycle) as a commuting/touring/primary
> vehicle? I live in Maine, where it has been known to snow. Seems to me the
> stability of a trike would suit the somewhat treacherous road conditions.  On
> another topic, someone told me that for biggish people (I'm 6 foot, 220
> pounds) a LWB bent is a better choice than a SWB, which might not handle as
> well--especially on fast turns. I'm not interested in racing, so all things
> being equal, is there any merit to this argument? I notice in the bio's on
> this list a slight preference for LWB's among people more or less my size.
> I'm contemplating my first bent, and am trying to get as much info as I can.
> Thanks a lot.

I have been commuting to work on a Trice (8 mi round trip) since August. 
Before then I rode the Trice recreationally. It seems to be holding up really 
well.

I have yet to ride the Trice in the snow. This is part due to the poor road 
surface cleaning (What's a plow?) here in Indiana and the inability of Indiana 
drivers to deal with snow and ice (What? Slow down? Pay attention to road 
conditions?). I'm really not interested in being flattened by someone who 
thinks driving 60 mph on ice in town is a good idea. :-( Being a university 
town only makes this worse...

I have ridden it in sand and on wet surfaces and it handles really well. It 
will slide sideways when pushed, not unlike a car. Fun when you are not in 
traffic.

As for fitting a Trice, be warned the seating area is somewhat narrow. I'm 
6'1" and 195 lbs. The main problem for larger folks will be the underseat 
steering which has bent up bars coming up as sticks on either side of the 
seat. A really nice arrangement as they fall right under your hands, but you 
have to fit between them.

I can't really comment on the SWB/LWB debate. I've not ridden a two wheeled 
SWB, yet. I rode a LWB (infinity) before the Trice. It was comfortable but 
slow with me on it. The Trice is more of an SWB in wheeelbase and has benefits 
of agile steering that an SWB design has. It also has a smaller angle between 
the legs and torso so it seems to climb and accellerate faster then my LWB. 
Please understand that's my subjective analysis; I really don't want to start 
another minor flame war on which 'bent climbs best, etc, etc.

-ddm