# Trice advice



## goosander (31 Jul 2007)

I fancy giving triking a go, so am keeping an eye out for a reasonably priced trike which probably means a Trice since they seem to one of the more common ones.

The lower and sportier Q and S versions appeal more than the higher T version, and also seem to come up for sale more often, but stability aside would I lose much in the way of performance by going for a T (or similar older Trice)?

Can the lower slung trikes cope with speed humps and cycling off kerbs etc without grounding?


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2007)

Most trikes are capable of these road features. I have ridden a Trice for some twelve years and now own a Catrike Expedition.


The only problems I have heard of where the lower slung Catrike Road grounded. The answer was a "bash plate"

I think the answer is to try one out and ask the owner / seller about the practicalities.

As for performance.....

A lot more depends on the rider than the trike!

My Catrike is lighter and faster than the old Trice, but that certainly wasn't a slouch. What makes the biggest difference is the stability and solid tracking enable faster speeds with confidence and safety - especially downhill!


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2007)

*Yahoo Group*

You could also try the Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/triketours/

They own a variety of Trikes and could give practical advice


----------



## squeaker (1 Aug 2007)

*Trice 'S'*



goosander said:


> Can the lower slung trikes cope with speed humps and cycling off kerbs etc without grounding?


Not found speed humps a problem with my 2006 'S' (wifey managed to ground it somewhere around Shoreham Harbour lock, though ). I don't normally launch of kerbs, so can't comment there.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Aug 2007)

I have an IceT (no suspension). I've ridden it across a ploughed field of stubble before. It was an interesting experience, but the Trice made it. Apart from that, I've always ridden it on road - and I've never had problems with it.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I have an IceT (no suspension). I've ridden it across a ploughed field of stubble before.



Did the basket of eggs survive intact?
(Sorry, Citroen reference)...

I think in terms of performance -, as Cunobelin says, it depends on your legs! I know someone with an Anthrotech, a very high 'bent trike, who will wipe the floor with me no matter what I ride... I think for a first trike, you can probably think about seeing what comes up on the market at a good price, in order to see how you like it - then later you can upgrade if you want to commit more. I think trikes have a pretty good resale/trade in value, if you look after them.

I know a guy who tours on an 'S', which suggests that he doesn't have many problems with clearance. A high kerb might be an issue, but a speed hump would have to be a pretty vicious one - I don't think they matter too much...


----------



## goosander (2 Aug 2007)

Thanks for all of your comments. 

Sounds like I should be OK with most speed bumps, though with a ground clearance of 8cm (ICE website, Q model) I suspect that to clear some of the 'pillow' type bumps round here, I would have to go over them with one front wheel on the bump and the other off rather then position the hump centrally between the wheels as you would in a car.

I've spotted a reasonably priced Q but don't know if its still for sale or not as the owner is currently on holiday, keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

goosander said:


> rather then position the hump centrally between the wheels as you would in a car.



Sort of makes you wonder what they're there for, if you can do that...

Yes, the one sided approach is probably best. Apart from anything else, it's quite fun!

At each end of York's Millennium Bridge, we have a set of three fairly smooth humps, forming a sort of wave pattern. I let the trike roll down the slope from the bridge a touch too fast once, and took off three times in quick succession!


----------



## TimO (2 Aug 2007)

LOL, I'd forgotten that! With a trike whenever you spot a pothole it's a much more complex process than with a bike over how to dodge it, or which wheel is going to suffer!

I wouldn't think a road pillow is narrow enough that you are going to straddle it with a trice like cars attempt to do (and ambulances, fire engines etc can, which is I believe why they are that shape). Going over a pillow is going to be much like going a "normal" full width speed bump.


----------



## goosander (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Sort of makes you wonder what they're there for, if you can do that...



I often wonder this too. They have no apparent effect on reducing speed since the vast majority of vehicles can either straddle them or avoid them. 

The cynic in me thinks they are there so that local councils can 'persuade' people to use public transport by making urban driving too frustrating to endure. I suppose another possibility is that they are there simply to reduce the likelyhood of compensation claims against the council in the event of any speed related accidents.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

goosander;32086][QUOTE=Arch said:


> Sort of makes you wonder what they're there for, if you can do that...



I often wonder this too. They have no apparent effect on reducing speed since the vast majority of vehicles can either straddle them or avoid them. 

[/QUOTE]

Initially, I understood that they were meant to be a way to have speed humps which didn't affect buses or ambulances or fire engines - those all being wider wheelbases. But they do seem to fit under a lot of cars as well. Another reason to have a nice big wide 4x4 perhaps?


----------



## eTriker (30 Dec 2007)

I mostly ride country lanes and dirt-tracks on my Trice QNT. The QNT has Elastomer rear suspension that really copes well. When on smooth tarmac, like when I do a trip to Colchester (35 miles return), I inflate to 70 psi all-round and it's a great fast ride. 

Back to the lanes and their rough surface plus potholes etc, I reduce the pressure to 50 psi. More comfort than any suspension MB I've owned. Fatter tyres than the ones that come on the Trice would be better. I'm told that Schwalbe BIG APPLE Tyres 406 X 50 on the fronts and either the same or 406 X 60 on the rear, all with little air in them works well. Rolling resistance is about as good as you'll get with these fat all-terrain tyres.

Go for the Trice QNT, yes it's a bit lower, tunable rear suspension, many alternative tyre choices, corners like a train on rail-tracks, nice comfortable ride. You'll love it. There's another on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ICE-Trice-QNT-2006-Recumbent-Trike_W0QQitemZ200187692818
PS: The above is no longer for sale. Andy changed his mind and is keeping his Trice QNT after someone told him "A trike is for life" !


----------



## byegad (31 Dec 2007)

The difference between the Q and T models is mainly seat height. Where you'd notice the difference is getting in or out of the seat and cornering. The T will tip at slower speed than the Q. 

The N(arrow)T(rack) versions are good on paths where there can be narrow gates and anti motorcycle obstacles. The NT version will tip before a standard width one. 

I own a QNT and with a little leaning into very fast corners it is stable and able to corner almost as fast as a two wheeler in the dry and faster than one in the wet. (I'm a bit of a demon descender and the trice inspires confidence) 
I've ridden some rough paths, broken up by horses and motorcycles without bottoming out. A Q with the wider track may bottom slightly earlier if it straddles a big lump. I'm a Sustrans ranger and ride my reasonably smooth off road route on it regularly.

As always try before you buy but unless seat height is a particular issue I'd guess that you'll find the Q or QNT meets your needs.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Dec 2007)

Don't mix "seat heignt" with "clearance".

The seat can be integrated into the frame, like the Catrike or the Greenspeed:







The Seat can also be raised above the frame as with WizWheels or the Trice:










It is quite possible to have a high seat, but low clearance, and vice versa


----------



## byegad (1 Jan 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't mix "seat heignt" with "clearance".
> 
> The seat can be integrated into the frame, like the Catrike or the Greenspeed:
> 
> ...


Err well... that was my point, seat height is a factor. I don't think I implied clearance = seat height.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jan 2008)

byegad said:


> Err well... that was my point, seat height is a factor. I don't think I implied clearance = seat height.



I wasn't being "personal", but a "general" comment - my apologies if it came across that way.

When I was researching a replacement for my Trice I had ignored the Catrikes as the clearance was so low (Speed comes in at 2"). The introduction of the Expedition with its higher frame and similarity to my old Crystal Engineering Trice was at exactly the right time..

It was surprising how many trikes don't quote ground clearance, but seat height, and it can be difficult to assess.


----------



## byegad (2 Jan 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> I wasn't being "personal", but a "general" comment - my apologies if it came across that way.
> 
> When I was researching a replacement for my Trice I had ignored the Catrikes as the clearance was so low (Speed comes in at 2"). The introduction of the Expedition with its higher frame and similarity to my old Crystal Engineering Trice was at exactly the right time..
> 
> It was surprising how many trikes don't quote ground clearance, but seat height, and it can be difficult to assess.



I think it's my turn to apolgise Cunobelin, I did not take your remarks personally, but rereading them I can see why thought I had. I tried to keep away from comparative clearance measurement for the reasons you stated.


----------

