First recumbent on my route

[goo_mason]

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

I don't belieeeeeeve it

Is my photo really that bad ? Can't see any resemblance myself and I live in Sunny Leith Sur Mer, where the sun always shines and the Proclaimers keep singing about it....

 

[Peyote]

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?

I would've thought recumbents would be more stable than upright bikes because of their lower centre of gravity. Don't many of them also have longer wheelbases too? Again more stablility. Maybe the choice of trike is for carrying capacity, or stability at lower speeds? that's why one of my friends rides an upright trike anyway.

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?

I'm slightly confused by this too, surely the amount of energy used is going to be the same either way? The blood has still got to get to the muscles, on an upright it is aided by gravity, then hindered on the way back. On a 'bent it is neither aided or hindered, hence energy consuption shouldn't be any different either way, should it?

 

[Peyote]

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.


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.

So you're ranting about 'bent riders on the basis that you percieve them to have some kind of 'superiority complex'? Not really something I've noticed from these forums, and I don't recall anyone else ever airing such feelings either.

Are you sure it isn't just because you personally feel threatened by them for some reason? Just seems an odd group to pick on that's all.

 

[goo_mason]

So you're ranting about 'bent riders on the basis that you percieve them to have some kind of 'superiority complex'? Not really something I've noticed from these froums, and I don't recall anyone else ever airing such feelings either.

Are you sure it isn't just because you personally feel threatened by them for some reason? Just seems an odd group to pick on that's all.

Maybe he was beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders during his formative years.....

 

[Peyote]

Maybe he was beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders during his formative years.....

Oh great. Well done Goo, go and rub salt into that (obviously still raw and open) emotional wound why don't you!

 

[Amanda P]

beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders

Now there's an interesting idea.

But where could we find a gang of hippy recumbent riders?...

 

[Arch]

But they're not 'onto a good thing'!

er, they enjoy riding them and percieve them to have benefits. That's 'onto a good thing' in my book..

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' -

'Onto a good thing' in no way implies a superior level of enlightenment, it just means making a good personal choice.

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.

Who said recumbent riders demand to be looked up to? You seem to be the only person thinking this.

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.

I don't believe I've ever tarred all car drivers with the same brush. I don't happen to own a car, but I've frequently driven one, and most of my friends drive them, and a lot of the people I see out on the road drive them perfectly sensibly. If a driver happens to endanger me, or someone else, I'll have a go at them. But you are having a go at recumbent riders for the simple reason that they enjoy something you don't.

Ok, Uncle Phil, I'm breathing....

 

[HJ]

This place really is beginning to feel just like the old C+ forum, all sweetness and light

 

[mosschops2]

Surely recumbents have not been popular / mainstream, as they were essentially banned from all race / olympic / world records / championships etc etc.!

If that had not been the case, their popularity would have been much greater - maybe 50% of all bikes on the road???

 

[Arch]

Surely recumbents have not been popular / mainstream, as they were essentially banned from all race / olympic / world records / championships etc etc.!

If that had not been the case, their popularity would have been much greater - maybe 50% of all bikes on the road???

That's the theory. Banned for being too fast. Since trends and equipment in mainstream cycling all filter down from racing, recumbents have remained a niche market - most people just don't know they exist.

 

[bonj2]

I would've thought recumbents would be more stable than upright bikes because of their lower centre of gravity. Don't many of them also have longer wheelbases too? Again more stablility. Maybe the choice of trike is for carrying capacity, or stability at lower speeds? that's why one of my friends rides an upright trike anyway.

Well you'd have thought wrong. In this wikipedia article on them it lists the main disadvantage as being balance. On a traditional bike you stay balanced because you can make minor adjustments to the position of your centre of gravity more easily because you have weight on the pedals, and you need a much lesser lateral adjustment to achieve the same balancing effect, because you are higher up hence the moment about the pivot point is more magnified.

I'm slightly confused by this too, surely the amount of energy used is going to be the same either way? The blood has still got to get to the muscles, on an upright it is aided by gravity, then hindered on the way back. On a 'bent it is neither aided or hindered, hence energy consuption shouldn't be any different either way, should it?

Maybe, although I think it requires more power to get it there than to get it back. Hence why arteries are bigger than veins, because they need to carry more blood and at greater pressure.

 

[bonj2]

That's the theory. Banned for being too fast. Since trends and equipment in mainstream cycling all filter down from racing, recumbents have remained a niche market - most people just don't know they exist.

Oh right, so that's why most people don't have them, course! It's not because they can't afford one or they haven't got enough space in their garage, but because they don't know they exist! Silly me, for thinking it's because they wouldn't be able to ride one...

 

[Peyote]

Well you'd have thought wrong. In this wikipedia article on them it lists the main disadvantage as being balance. On a traditional bike you stay balanced because you can make minor adjustments to the position of your centre of gravity more easily because you have weight on the pedals, and you need a much lesser lateral adjustment to achieve the same balancing effect, because you are higher up hence the moment about the pivot point is more magnified.

Interesting article, I guess that explains why there seem to be more 'bent trikes than upright trikes then. Thanks for enlightening me Bonj!

Maybe, although I think it requires more power to get it there than to get it back. Hence why arteries are bigger than veins, because they need to carry more blood and at greater pressure.

Another good point! I neglected to consider the pressure differences, be interested to know if this makes that much of a difference because it does seem to be often sited as a positive aspect of 'bents. Any Cardiologists (or similar) on the forum give an opinion, just for the sake of curiosity?

 

[mosschops2]

Oh right, so that's why most people don't have them, course! It's not because they can't afford one or they haven't got enough space in their garage, but because they don't know they exist! Silly me, for thinking it's because they wouldn't be able to ride one...

Actually that is correct. Since they were banned from competition 70-odd years ago, they have not had the popularity which they otherwise would have had. Imagine if instead of watching Chris Boardman on a bent rather than a recumbent in the 1996 Olmpics. You can't tell me that they would not be up there as an genuine option: do I go for a road, a hybrid, a MTB or a recumbent?

 

[mosschops2]

Link which I forgot is here re history

http://www.bikefix.co.uk/index.php?get_ol_id=4&get_bsm_id=21