Snoek L kommt

Cool! What were your observations? I'm going to test it tomorrow. Will ride there in my Milan GT because I want to do back-to-back comparisons. Curious to measure turning circle and will also transfer my own power meter pedals to measure efficiency.
 
Arend-Jan schrieb:
Cool! What were your observations? I'm going to test it tomorrow. Will ride there in my Milan GT because I want to do back-to-back comparisons. Curious to measure turning circle and will also transfer my own power meter pedals to measure efficiency.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
Beachte das ist noch nicht das definitive model. Mir wurde gesagt das die vorderen Radkasten noch ein wenig verschiebt werden und damit Wendekreis sich ändert. Wie viel? Keine Ahnung. So wie es jetzt ist, wirst du enttäuscht sein. Sag mal 28-406 QV 9m zu Snoek L 28-406 13m. Der Stuhl ist noch vom Quest. Leistungsmesser hatte ich auch mitgebracht wegen gegenseitiger Vergleich. Ich bin gespannt auf deine Ergebnisse.
Fazit, auf Niederländisch: het heeft iets lichtvoetigs. Übersetzung wäre "es hat etwas Unbeschwertes".
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Nur zur Info:
Velomobiel.nl postet ab und zu Informationen über den Snoek L auf dem MeWe Velomobiel.nl Kanal. Wie auch gestern.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Noch ein paar weitere Bilder von der Probefahrt.

Auf dem Weg zur Probefahrt......................Schicksal?

20230614_103608.jpg
 
I should also post my experience here.

I went to Dronten last Saturday (by bike, as one should,. Hoekie ;) ) to test the Snoek L.
My reference is the Milan GT MK6, that I've owned for 4 years and rode >21.000km now. I also have a QuattreVelo, which I use if I bring my daughter to school (and then continue to the office directly) and I owned a (glassfiber) Quest in the past (prior to the Milan).

The Snoek L in some ways feels like extrapolating the change from Quest to Milan GT. It has less room for fat tires than the GT, which has less room than the Quest. It also is (a little) less roomy inside. But, to my surprise, I fit fine, even though I have 52cm shoulders. I was not concerned about leg room, as I'm only 1.82 tall (with 87cm inseam and shoes size 44), but my shoulders do not fit a Milan SL, for example.

I skipped testing the Snoek during my last visit to Dronten, as I really wanted to do back-to-back comparison on the same day, on the same road, with my Milan GT (that time, I only had my QV there). So I did approximately 40km in the Snoek L, then transferred my own power meter pedals back into the Milan GT, corrected the crank length setting, re-calibrated and rode the comparison ride in that. Note: I put identical front tires (Schwalbe One 28-406) on my bike as on Snoek L. Rear tire was different, as I have 559 (had Pasela 42 on it, runs quite fast, was inflated hard) and Snoek L is 700C (ran GP5000). My GT runs well. On the way there, it was more efficient than my friends' Milan SL. This can be explained since we toured there at moderate speed, and he's slightly heavier. Just mentioning it, as I feel my GT is not easy to beat in terms of efficiency (for a big bike).

Now for the powerdata: downwind, at steady-speed, straight & level road, I averaged 55.0 km/h in both bikes. The Snoek L required 13 Watt less than the GT (211 vs 224 for GT) over the same section of 2km long.
Then, same road, opposite direction, into the wind: 49.1 km/h in both. Snoek L required 34 Watt less (215 vs 249 for GT). Impressive. I also managed a 70 km/h sprint with the seat not setup just right, which I have yet to do (on flat terrain) in the GT.

Here's a few pictures. After setting the seat to my liking, I think it was quite similar to my GT. Seen from the side, I also think both bikes are very similar in shape and size. Note: my GT is 1cm lower than stock (but still higher above the ground than a SL), so a stock GT is taller than Snoek L.
Main difference: Snoek L is less wide, and has wider head rest (and no boobs.. unfortunately ;) ). Also, do note that Snoek L looks like it has less ground clearance than GT, but there's hardly any foot bumps (and GT has deep ones). In reality, I think it has more ground clearance, as tested, compared to my GT.

What I also should mention, is that the Snoek L accelerates easier than my GT. I have always felt it's a bit 'soft'. I can also see the mast move (flex) sideways when I pedal >300W. I think the chain line is better in the Snoek L, with the front idler behind the bridge in between front wheels, while in the GT it sits in front of the bridge (chain deflection angle is bigger!). Also, the rear swingarm is designed better, as the chain runs through the pivot, and not way above it (as in my GT, making it squat a bit during hard pedaling). In fact: I was planning to install a mast-stiffening beam in my GT, and would do so if I did not fit the Snoek L.

I think Theo and Allert created a very nice (and pretty!) bike. It's fast but still roomy enough and more comfortable than my GT. In the past, I tried the M9, but the centre console is too wide to my liking, and I dragged my heels in it, just like I did in A7 (cleats halfway!). The Buelk also fits, but I think it's ugly.. sorry! The Tuna accelerates great, but I think it's less efficient (slightly less aero) for long fast distances, which is what I like to do most.

What I would miss about the GT: front luggage compartments that are easy accessible (by flipping up that nice entry lid). It also can hold more luggage. But for that, I now have the QV, so I no longer think that is that important.

Final note: I think the Snoek mirrors are rubbish. Especially as tested: I had to look through that windscreen, and didn't see much in them. I think their field of view (angle) is too limited. So I would mount my own (those on GT are my own design, with dimmable powerful lights integrated). This would also make the air inlet fully functional again (instead of blocking most of it by installing a light there).
 

Anhänge

  • IMG_20230617_114721794.jpg
    IMG_20230617_114721794.jpg
    224,9 KB · Aufrufe: 178
  • signal-2023-06-17-145005_002.jpeg
    signal-2023-06-17-145005_002.jpeg
    312,2 KB · Aufrufe: 176
  • signal-2023-06-18-104639_002.jpeg
    signal-2023-06-18-104639_002.jpeg
    100,4 KB · Aufrufe: 176
Thank you @Arend-Jan for this detailed review. The Snoek is really appealing to me, too, can‘t wait to test it myself. How did you like the tiller-steering - any differences when comparing it to your other bikes? It’s a pity, that tank steering won‘t be offered. Or so they said at least - will they possibly change their mind here?
 
You are welcome.

The steering is light. At low speed I like how easy it is to turn. When I was doing 60+ it was a little more nervous than my GT. But I do have 21k km of experience in the GT and this was my first ride in the Snoek ;) But it's nowhere near as nervous as a DF, for example (I don't like how those handle, especially with sidewind).

I don't expect tank steering is coming. Personally I also don't mind, I like being able to also put stuff next to the seat, tank steering limits that. In the GT, and QV, and my former Quest, the tiller is suspended from a brake line, which makes it quite comfortable for me
 
Arend-Jan schrieb:
I should also post my experience here.

I went to Dronten last Saturday (by bike, as one should,. Hoekie ;) ) to test the Snoek L.
My reference is the Milan GT MK6, that I've owned for 4 years and rode >21.000km now. I also have a QuattreVelo, which I use if I bring my daughter to school (and then continue to the office directly) and I owned a (glassfiber) Quest in the past (prior to the Milan).

The Snoek L in some ways feels like extrapolating the change from Quest to Milan GT. It has less room for fat tires than the GT, which has less room than the Quest. It also is (a little) less roomy inside. But, to my surprise, I fit fine, even though I have 52cm shoulders. I was not concerned about leg room, as I'm only 1.82 tall (with 87cm inseam and shoes size 44), but my shoulders do not fit a Milan SL, for example.

I skipped testing the Snoek during my last visit to Dronten, as I really wanted to do back-to-back comparison on the same day, on the same road, with my Milan GT (that time, I only had my QV there). So I did approximately 40km in the Snoek L, then transferred my own power meter pedals back into the Milan GT, corrected the crank length setting, re-calibrated and rode the comparison ride in that. Note: I put identical front tires (Schwalbe One 28-406) on my bike as on Snoek L. Rear tire was different, as I have 559 (had Pasela 42 on it, runs quite fast, was inflated hard) and Snoek L is 700C (ran GP5000). My GT runs well. On the way there, it was more efficient than my friends' Milan SL. This can be explained since we toured there at moderate speed, and he's slightly heavier. Just mentioning it, as I feel my GT is not easy to beat in terms of efficiency (for a big bike).

Now for the powerdata: downwind, at steady-speed, straight & level road, I averaged 55.0 km/h in both bikes. The Snoek L required 13 Watt less than the GT (211 vs 224 for GT) over the same section of 2km long.
Then, same road, opposite direction, into the wind: 49.1 km/h in both. Snoek L required 34 Watt less (215 vs 249 for GT). Impressive. I also managed a 70 km/h sprint with the seat not setup just right, which I have yet to do (on flat terrain) in the GT.

Here's a few pictures. After setting the seat to my liking, I think it was quite similar to my GT. Seen from the side, I also think both bikes are very similar in shape and size. Note: my GT is 1cm lower than stock (but still higher above the ground than a SL), so a stock GT is taller than Snoek L.
Main difference: Snoek L is less wide, and has wider head rest (and no boobs.. unfortunately ;) ). Also, do note that Snoek L looks like it has less ground clearance than GT, but there's hardly any foot bumps (and GT has deep ones). In reality, I think it has more ground clearance, as tested, compared to my GT.

What I also should mention, is that the Snoek L accelerates easier than my GT. I have always felt it's a bit 'soft'. I can also see the mast move (flex) sideways when I pedal >300W. I think the chain line is better in the Snoek L, with the front idler behind the bridge in between front wheels, while in the GT it sits in front of the bridge (chain deflection angle is bigger!). Also, the rear swingarm is designed better, as the chain runs through the pivot, and not way above it (as in my GT, making it squat a bit during hard pedaling). In fact: I was planning to install a mast-stiffening beam in my GT, and would do so if I did not fit the Snoek L.


Final note: I think the Snoek mirrors are rubbish. Especially as tested: I had to look through that windscreen, and didn't see much in them. I think their field of view (angle) is too limited. So I would mount my own (those on GT are my own design, with dimmable powerful lights integrated). This would also make the air inlet fully functional again (instead of blocking most of it by installing a light there).
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
I have the exact same mirrors and I see enough. If I want to look sideways, I check the small windows on both sides. Furthermore, in a velomobile like the Snoek, Milan SL or any other velomobile, you just never get overtaken (on cycle paths). The real serious test with me was a 134-kilometre ride in Germany where we (Milan SL and Snoek) were constantly riding on the main road and were often overtaken by cars. Everything worked effortlessly. But opinions are personal, so if you don't like them, that's obviously fine. Out of 3 versions they offer, they also look best, in my opinion.
 
Einig mit der Lenkung, obwohl ich etwas Spiel gespürt habe. Ausserdem war der Tiller auf der kurzen Seite. Geschmeckt hat es.
Ich hätte mir mehr Wind gewünscht, aber am Tag der Testfahrt gab es nur eine fette 4 (maximal 16 Knoten).
 
Peter_Joossen schrieb:
I have the exact same mirrors and I see enough. If I want to look sideways, I check the small windows on both sides. Furthermore, in a velomobile like the Snoek, Milan SL or any other velomobile, you just never get overtaken (on cycle paths). The real serious test with me was a 134-kilometre ride in Germany where we (Milan SL and Snoek) were constantly riding on the main road and were often overtaken by cars. Everything worked effortlessly. But opinions are personal, so if you don't like them, that's obviously fine. Out of 3 versions they offer, they also look best, in my opinion.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
Not getting overtaken is such a BS argument, imho. I commute to work with it, it's not only for PB attempts on perfect roads, for me. And if I cruise 50 there's still souped up/illegal mopeds/scooters that overtake me. And I ride on the road a lot as well, and many car drivers seem to feel they 'must' overtake you even if you're doing 60 where 50 is allowed, because: 'cyclist on my road'. Sure you can just ride on the middle of the road and block/prevent being overtaken, but then I'd like to see if upcoming (speeding) traffic actually noticed me and will not rear-end me. Or have that one guy behind me who already had a really bad day and who cannot tolerate another 5 second delay.

I've had 1 serious accident already, which took many months to recover from, so forgive me if I now care about safety a tiny bit more than others and seem allergic to 'if your fast enough you won't be overtaken' statements.

Besides that, I just want to clearly see the world behind me, for my own sense of safety. And be able to see my mates if they are following, check if the group is still complete. If the mirror is not great, I'll have to look longer, reducing the time I spend looking in front of me, also not that safe.

Like I said, it was probably worse because of the windscreen (had to look through that to look in the mirrors) but imho the angle is just narrow.

And I doubt that a normal B&M or Zefal will slow you down significantly/measurably.

Sorry, long offtopic post.
On topic: turning circle was better than I expected/feared.
 
Arend-Jan schrieb:
Not getting overtaken is such a BS argument, imho. I commute to work with it, it's not only for PB attempts on perfect roads, for me. And if I cruise 50 there's still souped up/illegal mopeds/scooters that overtake me. And I ride on the road a lot as well, and many car drivers seem to feel they 'must' overtake you even if you're doing 60 where 50 is allowed, because: 'cyclist on my road'. Sure you can just ride on the middle of the road and block/prevent being overtaken, but then I'd like to see if upcoming (speeding) traffic actually noticed me and will not rear-end me. Or have that one guy behind me who already had a really bad day and who cannot tolerate another 5 second delay.

I've had 1 serious accident already, which took many months to recover from, so forgive me if I now care about safety a tiny bit more than others and seem allergic to 'if your fast enough you won't be overtaken' statements.

Besides that, I just want to clearly see the world behind me, for my own sense of safety. And be able to see my mates if they are following, check if the group is still complete. If the mirror is not great, I'll have to look longer, reducing the time I spend looking in front of me, also not that safe.

Like I said, it was probably worse because of the windscreen (had to look through that to look in the mirrors) but imho the angle is just narrow.

And I doubt that a normal B&M or Zefal will slow you down significantly/measurably.

Sorry, long offtopic post.
On topic: turning circle was better than I expected/feared.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
The road code in the Netherlands states very clearly that a velomobile must follow the rules of the bicycle, meaning that if the bicycle path must be followed compulsorily unless the road code suggests otherwise. And on that cycle path, a velomobile is usually way faster than other commuters, so using your mirrors speaks less of a role. Maybe you should check in my reply that I do talk about bike lanes where you are rarely overtaken, not motor roads, small detail.

But hey, what do I know, I only live in Belgium in the country with the worst maintained cycle paths. So please don't come off with PB attempts, I usually ride the Snoek at a 45 km/h cruising speed. And at this speed, you are actually up among the fastest commuters on the bike path, such as pedelecs (which in fact should adhere to 30-kilometre-per-hour rule, but no one does). With a velomobile, you are at a severe disadvantage if the cycle path is too narrow, which is often the case with me. Overtaking is then basically out of the question, unless I take the road, which is forbidden.

But when you do ride on the main road, I have learned, thanks to Timo (the German), to use the middle of the lane more to be seen better. We often rode on stretches where the speed for the cars was limited to 100 km/h. That's more than 40 km/h difference between our speed and that didn't make certain (just a few) drivers happy, resulting in loud honking. Timo himself said that the aggression sometimes goes beyond that, but all in all it is not too bad. If you ride too far to the right, cars make many more attempts to overtake you, leading to more dangerous situations. A mirror is not going to help a darn thing in such situations, be it minimalist or large. You are never going to see a car approaching you at full speed while your focus is on other things. Then you already need a camera which notifies you what is coming.

About these souped-up mopeds, that's equally a BS argument, as if you encounter five or so of them every day. And you can tell exactly which is souped-up and which is not? Besides, I'd rather be hit by a souped-up moped than a car, but that's for everyone to decide for themselves.
 
Souped up is easy enough: over 45 km/h = illegal
And yes, I see that almost daily. And who cares how often? 1 can be enough....

About the use of mirrors, maybe it's because of my motorcycle training, but I always know what's behind me.

Camera's: I have two. And radar...
I don't care much about road code, I care about being safe

Stay safe there, especially in Belgium, I do not envy you...
Bye now!
 
Oben Neue Beiträge
Du musst dich einloggen oder registrieren, um hier zu antworten.
Zurück
Oben Unten