First recumbent on my route

[goo_mason]

Regardless of Bonj's opinions, I'd still love to try one so I'll perhaps pop up and see if I can get on a tour when I'm off for two weeks soon.

(In my head, I see Bonj looking somewhat like Victor Meldrew, and living in a house with a big black cloud permanently over it )

 

[TimO]

The ones who "don't see you" are the same ones who don't see ANY bike!

...and a lot of those who "don't see you", do see you on a recumbent. They are generally so unusual that car drivers who would otherwise look straight through you, just registering you as another bit of scenery, have no choice but to notice the strange machine.

Where I used to live, I pulled out from a driveway onto a fairly main road (A40 through Cheltenham), I stopped pulling out onto the footpath, because there were so many near misses by car drivers looking at me and not watching the road ahead. Behind the wall of the drive, I could see the cars over the wall, but they couldn't see my Trice.

They only reason I don't have it any more are (i) Not enough room to store a Trice in London and (ii) Recumbent trikes aren't really suitable for heavy traffic and congested narrow streets, not because of safety, just because they don't fit very well, not being as narrow as a bike.

...but I wouldn't be able to take it on the train either.

I remember a few years back, someone produced a conversion kit for Bromptons that made a folding recumbent Brompton! It don't think it folded as fast or as compactly as a traditional Brompton, but it was quite a clever idea.

 

[Cab]

Why is is that some of us see something new and think "Cool!" and some others automatically crawl back under their rock muttering...?

I think I fall into a third category. I see something new and different and think 'thats new and different', I don't always think 'cool', but I don't react badly to things just 'cos they're different.

I don't have any problem with recumbents, they have some obvious advantages and some disadvantages too, and I can see why some people would choose to ride one even though I don't fancy it. I think that unicycles are an insane way to commute, though.

 

[gavintc]

Someone chains one to a lamp post at the bottom of my block of flats during the working day. I have not seen him/her and only see the recumbent if I come home from work early. It looks quite a nice one - but I have not a clue about recumbents.

 

[squeaker]

Train?

but I wouldn't be able to take it on the train either.

Is that 'cos your RailCo doesn't 'do' bikes? My HPV Grasshopper takes about the same space as a DF bike and fits fine (when Southern see fit to allow bikes on, that is ...). A trike would be a different fish kettle, though

 

[ufkacbln]

There is only one company (GNER) that specifically bans recumbents.


But then again they ban everyhing apart form Bromptons painted a specific shade of pink, adorned with a flying pig motif and manufactured on the third Tuesday of the month!

 

[Arch]

There is only one company (GNER) that specifically bans recumbents.


But then again they ban everyhing apart form Bromptons painted a specific shade of pink, adorned with a flying pig motif and manufactured on the third Tuesday of the month!

To be fair, that's not true - I take my normal bike on GNER at least twice a year, York to Berwick, no problem (I always reserve though) And a big hello to the station staff at Berwick, who are consistently very helpful and friendly.

 

[gavintc]

I have used GNER to move my bike between Glasgow and York to good effect. Indeed, I am happier putting my bike in the GNER goods van than hanging in the entrance way on a Virgin train. On my last trip south on GNER, the train driver and I got chatting about bikes as I was loading in Glasgow. He certainly was pro the idea of carrying bikes.

 

[bonj2]

Not taken off eh? What exactly do you mean by taken off?

Become popular.

I mean we all know the world has to bend to your logic, so what do recumbents have to do to 'take off'.

They don't have to satisfy me that they've taken off. Some people like them, some people don't. I personally don't, but if you do - go and ride one, it's no skin off my nose.

One owned by every cyclist? One in every household?

One in every city might be a start...
But those two criteria you've listed above can pretty much both be said about upright bikes.
Again, it all boils down to the same old question as with that dodgy "Airnimal" thing - if they were that good, then why haven't more people got one?
When I say 'good', as in 'that good', I mean 'good' for the human race as a whole in the sense that the bike is 'good' in that it's a global transport phenomenon, not 'good' in the novelty sense that, say, the telescope is 'good' in that it can see stars and planets at night but not much else.

Why not just admit that some people like them and have them - either exclusively or together with uprights...

Yep, I'll admit that...

...a lot of people would like one, but can't afford one, or don't have space for more than just one bike

According to the wikipedia article on them, they only cost 10%-15% more than the equivalently-specced upright bike, so I think that 'can't afford one' is an excuse given by people who don't think they could ride one/can't ride one/are too scared to ride one. 'Don't have space for one' is a similar excuse.

and a lot of people who've never seen one look at them and say "That's cool!".

Yes, exactly. They look at them and think 'that's cool', rather than 'that's how I want to get to work every day.'

You stick to what you like, and stop telling other people what's good and what's bad, especially on subjects you know nothing about.

That's fine - I don't want to come over all like I'm condemning them and that I think all recumbents should be rounded up and burnt at the stake, I don't. But I think these people should know their place - these 'special interest' groups don't seem content with being a novelty and it's when they start trying to come over all mainstream that it gets my goat - it's just a pretence! As far as I'm concerned, recumbents fit in the same category as unicycles and roller skates. They require skill, and yes, they may be fun - but they're never going to be a viable mainstream means of day-to-day transport.
Why are the people who have these weird bikes not content with having something a bit eccentric - why do they have to put on this pretence of being 'the enlightened ones'? It really doesn't help what with the fact that their ego is constantly boosted by all the people who look starry-eyed up at them in awe, saying "ooooooooooh - I wish I had one of those!"
Nope - they're just not stable. Sorry.

 

[bonj2]

Myths!

Unless you are riding a real racing one, most "street recumbents" have the head in a neutral position. In fact you are under much less strain than on a racing machine, or mountain bike where the neck is much further back.Your field of view is much more open and natural

Visibilty is again a unfounded worry. I am taller on my street machine than many children an a few women riders on DFs.

What's a "DF" when it's at home? Please understand that not everybody understand your jargon, contrary to what you may like to believe.

What is important is sensible riding. Providing you are not undertaking artics and other silly antics, you will have no problems.

Most drivers should be looking a hundred yards ahead for road markings, bollards etc, all of which are lower. At the distances drivers should be looking height is not a factor.

But the point is if I'm on my normal bike, I can be seen over most normal-height cars, possibly with the exception of 4x4s. A recumbent can't even be the other side of the bonnet of a car.

As with any bike it is simply acquiring the skills. A recumbent handles as well in most cases as a DF. If you have problems "nipping through a gap" then shouldn't one be querying the wisdom of the move rather than the ability of the machine?

Well if a certain move is possible on an upright bike but not on a recumbent, then surely that's one reason the upright bike is better?! I didn't know that was a problem of recumbents, but thanks for pointing that out.

I have no more problems with maneoverability or stability than with any other machine In fact the Trike is outstanding in both cases.

But surely the fact that it needs to be a trike in the first place is due to the fact it's less stable? Why else has it got 3 wheels rather than 2?

As for the leg position, this is a benefit.

So what about the fact that more blood pressure is required to pump oxygenated blood to the horizontal legs, as opposed to being helped by gravity?

That is why all gyms have recumbent cycling machines!

Er.. no they don't. I've never seen one and I've been to quite a few gyms. They might have them in your particular poncy part of London. And anyway in gyms, they have things that are deliberately engineered to be difficult to give you a workout.

The fact that you can use bigger muscles as you can lock your hip into the seat makes the potential power output greater.

The way I read it on wikipedia was that you need to lock your hip into the seat to generate the same power output that you would be able to achieve on an upright bike anyway, but if you think you know better - fair enough...

Like with any development in fitness the body will compensate, and there is no problem with the legs adapting to this position. The resultant increased blood flow actually makes this position more efficient - again try and find a gym without a recumbent machine!

Never seen one with one.

PS - they even go off road on hill tracks across the Pennines!

Now the TPT is probably one of the places I would imagine is a good place to enjoy one - as you can see the scenery and it doesn't matter if you fall off, and it's a nice relaxed ride in the country without the urge for it to become physically strenuous exercise. And I can't quite work out why your'e wearing a helmet in that picture, I'm presuming there was some road riding involved aswell...

Is there such a thing as a .... downhill recumbent?

 

[bonj2]

Regardless of Bonj's opinions, I'd still love to try one so I'll perhaps pop up and see if I can get on a tour when I'm off for two weeks soon.

(In my head, I see Bonj looking somewhat like Victor Meldrew, and living in a house with a big black cloud permanently over it )

Well you're a fine one to talk! pot/kettle...

 

[Arch]

That's fine - I don't want to come over all like I'm condemning them and that I think all recumbents should be rounded up and burnt at the stake, I don't. But I think these people should know their place - these 'special interest' groups don't seem content with being a novelty and it's when they start trying to come over all mainstream that it gets my goat - it's just a pretence! As far as I'm concerned, recumbents fit in the same category as unicycles and roller skates. They require skill, and yes, they may be fun - but they're never going to be a viable mainstream means of day-to-day transport.
Why are the people who have these weird bikes not content with having something a bit eccentric - why do they have to put on this pretence of being 'the enlightened ones'? It really doesn't help what with the fact that their ego is constantly boosted by all the people who look starry-eyed up at them in awe, saying "ooooooooooh - I wish I had one of those!"
Nope - they're just not stable. Sorry.

Not viable as mainstream transport eh? Dear me, does that mean that all the people who do actually use them as mainstream transport are imaginary? Pity, that means a lot of my friends and people on this forum don't exist....

Do you ever actually listen to yourself? Why are you so threatened by the idea of recumbent riders thinking they're onto a good thing? I don't recall anyone ever suggesting recumbents had to take over the world, or that you had to have one, so why don't you just shut up, and stick to what you like, and stop trying to put down other people's choices? Because actually, although you are irritating enough to make a lot of us ride to your bait in the deluded hope of teaching you something, in the end, we don't actually care what you think, since you usually prove yourself to be ill-informed and narrowminded.

 

[Amanda P]

Steady on, Arch. Take some deep breaths.


... and relax...

It's only Bonj.

 

[bonj2]

Do you ever actually listen to yourself? Why are you so threatened by the idea of recumbent riders thinking they're onto a good thing?

But they're not 'onto a good thing'!
You're not grasping the reason I'm for this rant about them - the reason they annoy me is not because I feel threatened by them but because the riders and proponents of them just annoy me with their false pretences - the very phrase "onto a good thing" suggests some notion of 'enlightenment' - there's no enlightenment, no 'greater awareness' that these people possess - it's just a little gang of people who feel they should be looked up to (and for some reason completely unbeknown to me, are!) for having a weird and wacky fundamental design variation for variation's sake.

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting recumbents had to take over the world, or that you had to have one, so why don't you just shut up, and stick to what you like, and stop trying to put down other people's choices? Because actually, although you are irritating enough to make a lot of us ride to your bait in the deluded hope of teaching you something, in the end, we don't actually care what you think, since you usually prove yourself to be ill-informed and narrowminded.

It's not their particular choice that I'm putting down in itself, it's just the attitude of these loons. You reserve the right to have a rant about the attitude of 'all' car drivers, so I reserve the right to tar recumbent riders with the mad brush.

 

[bonj2]

Do you wear one of those japanese umbrella-hats when you go out in the rain? No? God, you're so ill-informed and narrow-minded! You need to see the light!