First recumbent on my route

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

bonj2

Guest
Arch;32810][quote name= said:
But people that would have a racing bike / touring bike don't have a problem balancing a two-wheeled upright bike so three wheels wouldn't be any advantage to them.

So no-one who might have a balance problem would ever want to go racing or touring then?[/QUOTE]

The only reason (bar a few rare exceptions) people might have a balance problem with riding an upright bike is because they've never learnt. The only reason they never would have learnt is if they have no interest whatsoever in cycling or riding a bike.
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
Sorry Tynan, I really don't understand your problem? Yes, your post was on topic, and I realise I replied clumsily, for which I apologised, and your point was perfectly valid and useful. So either continue to contribute, or ignore us, surely?

If you see people you don't really know arguing in the street, do you wade in and tell them their argument is absurd? Or just walk by?
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
The only reason (bar a few rare exceptions) people might have a balance problem with riding an upright bike is because they've never learnt. The only reason they never would have learnt is if they have no interest whatsoever in cycling or riding a bike.

So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?

And that's just the 'special needs' case. As I pointed out before, some people actually like to try different things. Riding any trike is a different feeling to riding a bike. Just like eating curry is different to eating a traditional roast dinner. Neither is 'better', they are just different and add variety.

There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
your apology was rather reduced in effect by the invitation to stay away from what presumably is 'your' thread

you two are going round and round in circles, get a room and get it over with
 

classic33

Leg End Member
Well throwing in my thoughts on the subject.
It started as a simple observation about having seen a recumbent whilst out cycling, on a bike. Developed into the old argument about why anyone would want to ride one, let alone actually own one.
Someone has problems seeing the difference between a trike & a bike & is unable to put forward any actual reason for not riding one. Presumably because they do not ride one.
That which they know little or nothing about frightens them.

Its since developed into an argument about why any other form of cycle than the type most seen, upright, two wheels.

As someone who has ridden a few odd cycles (2,3,4 & more wheels,one three & half wheeled trike) would anyone like to tell me into which class this falls
http://www.encycleopedia.com/index.cfm?pid=23&edID=216
& would they ride it. Bear in mind that legs are behind the rider when giving any reason
 
By Bonj's arguments:

caterham_seven_28_06_06.jpg


2007_Jaguar_XK_coupe.jpg


side4.jpg


Are all failures on the grounds that they haven't taken off by his criteria?


I can't get the link to work, but was it this:
lgPhoto1.jpg

The "Cool Breeze" prone?

If so then I have ridden it!
 

bonj2

Guest
Tynan said:
your apology was rather reduced in effect by the invitation to stay away from what presumably is 'your' thread

you two are going round and round in circles, get a room and get it over with

Stop demanding attention. You posted a picture of a three-wheeled scooter, great. Despite the fact it was on-topic, no-one's that interested and it wasn't a point of the question. Get over it.
This argument has only continued so far because there are two distinct sides each with their own diifferent, strongly-held beliefs, if you don't understand either of them - as you haven't shown any evidence of, then don't expect to be specifically replied to.
 

bonj2

Guest
Cunobelin said:
By Bonj's arguments:
[pictures of cars]

Are all failures on the grounds that they haven't taken off by his criteria?
Er... no. I don't know how you get from anything i've been saying to there.




Cunobelin said:
lgPhoto1.jpg

The "Cool Breeze" prone?
it looks a bit uncomfy to be honest. What supports your head?!
And from looking at the article about it, it's only been made like that in order to win races where you're not allowed a fairing.
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?
No, they're just different types - not numbers of people. (Well, I'm not exactly sure they're all 'different', in the sense of being distinct, but still...)

They're not more common than I think. I think they're rare, and they ARE rare.


Arch said:
And that's just the 'special needs' case. As I pointed out before, some people actually like to try different things.
Yes, but only for the sake of trying different things. Have you ever heard of the expression 'novelty value'?
Novelty value alone isn't a good enough reason for something to exist. So basically it's a rehabilitation aid for people with balance problems. Which is ok in itself, but don't pretend it's anything else! Just don't pretend it's... well, sensible, or normal....

To be fairly honest, a recumbent actually seems pretty logical and attractive compared to that shitter. In fact you've actually won me over on the recumbent front - and what a good way of doing it, just show me something 10 times worse.


Arch said:
Riding any trike is a different feeling to riding a bike. Just like eating curry is different to eating a traditional roast dinner. Neither is 'better', they are just different and add variety.
No, it's a completely wrong analogy. A curry and a roast are both popular, a large proportion of the population like, and consume regularly, both of them. Not the case with trikes. I honestly cannot see the point in trikes, other than to get up hills really really slowly.
Arch said:
There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...
yes but it should be variety in where you ride, not what you ride...
 
Slightly OT

Actually I have a theory that applies to all bikes.

You need a good advocate and / or a good bike shop locally to trigger off interest.

If you have a high end LBS then you will see high end bikes more often. We had lots of folders around, but once a local shop started with Bromptons, they took over within months as the most frequent. All it needs is for people to see the quality, use and example set by owners.



Same with recumbents - at my places of work we have a Challenge Hurricane, a Catrike expedition, two Street Machines, a Linear, a Windcheetah and two Trices (S and Q)

There is also a Grashopper, PDQ3, a PDQ another Windcheetah and a Vision locally.
 

bonj2

Guest
It's probably true Cunobelin. I must admit I wouldn't mind having a go on a recumbent just to see what speed advantage you actually get from aerodynamics, especially downhill with a fairing. But I still don't understand why if it's that good they're not more popular? I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they can't be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?
 
I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they can't be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?

Exactly why those cars should b condemned?

There are many reasons, the main one probably being availability.
 
bonj said:
not those cars, recumbents!

Why not?

The criteria are the same......

Small manufacturing run, high specification, high end specialist machines.

The comparison is fair, appropriate and justified.

If the proof of a recumbent engineering and performance is popularity and the fact that there aren't a lot more around" then the same criticism applies.
 

Andy in Sig

Vice President in Exile
bonj said:
It's probably true Cunobelin. I must admit I wouldn't mind having a go on a recumbent just to see what speed advantage you actually get from aerodynamics, especially downhill with a fairing. But I still don't understand why if it's that good they're not more popular? I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they can't be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?

They're probably not more popular because:

a. They are relatively expensive. Given that Joe Public seems to begrudge spending more than £100 on a bike he's hardly likely to want to splash out more than a grand, is he? That means their use tends to be confined to people who are serious about cycling who have convinced themselves that they offer significant advantages over DFs.

b. Conservatism. Some people just don't like different things and perhaps don't want to riske being perceived to be eccentric.

And FWIW, no they are not more difficult to ride than DFs, they're just as easy but are ridden in a different way. Effectively you steer a recumbent with your bum whereas you steer a DF with your shoulders.

In my opinion and experience recumbents are, in most areas, simply a better ride than DFs but I am sure that there will be somebody with equal experience of both who will take the opposite view.
 
Top Bottom