First recumbent on my route

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

bonj2

Guest
mosschops2 said:
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?

You see there you go again with the arrogant superiority complex. You choose to assume that most people don't know about them, when you've no idea what most people know about or what they don't. The fact is you choose to assume that because you think that if people knew about them they would ride them - does it just not occur to you that people do know about them and think they look a bit silly, or have thought about the mechanics of them and thought they seem a bit unstable? You then let yourself get a bit carried away and go on to assume that I only ride a particular type of bike because that's what Chris Boardman rides.
 

mosschops2

New Member
Location
Nottingham
Not at all Mr B!!

I'm talking about in my experience, people I've spoken to, when discussing the fact that I sold my car and ride to work, and bikes I'm thinking of getting etc etc, I'd say that about 10% of people are even aware of them.

And given that I don't own a road bike, and have no real interest in bike racing, even I watched Chris Boardman in the olympics. I'm not saying it would make me get one, but it would have increased my awareness of them!!

Is that fair enough??!!

I'm impressed that you've tried one though.... I recall with warm memories a thread about fixed bikes, which you in the beginning didn't know what they were, and by the end had dismissed them as a pointless fashionable fad!!!!!!!
 

bonj2

Guest
mosschops2 said:
Not at all Mr B!!
I'm talking about in my experience, people I've spoken to, when discussing the fact that I sold my car and ride to work, and bikes I'm thinking of getting etc etc, I'd say that about 10% of people are even aware of them.
10% of people might be aware of them, but what percentage of cyclists would you think are aware of them? Compare that to the percentage of cyclists that have actually got one or would choose to have one?

mosschops2 said:
And given that I don't own a road bike, and have no real interest in bike racing, even I watched Chris Boardman in the olympics. I'm not saying it would make me get one, but it would have increased my awareness of them!!
It would increase my awareness of them, but there's a difference between being 'aware' of them, and them "being up there as a genuine option" when I'm thinking of what bike to buy...

mosschops2 said:
I'm impressed that you've tried one though....
Well, no - I haven't actually, it was a lie. But it seems to have worked. How likely would it have been that my claims that they're less stable would have been palmed off with "but you haven't ever ridden one so how do you know?" - even though the people that would have been saying that are riders of them themselves and they know they're less stable.
Only now that this has been accepted do I feel I can admit for argument's sake that I never have ridden one. In other words I had to lie to prevent you lying on the grounds that you might as well have done because I supposedly wouldn't have known any different.

mosschops2 said:
I recall with warm memories a thread about fixed bikes, which you in the beginning didn't know what they were, and by the end had dismissed them as a pointless fashionable fad!!!!!!!

Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much me doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's you doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid.
 
OP
OP
goo_mason

goo_mason

Champion barbed-wire hurdler
Location
Leith, Edinburgh
Little did I realise that my innocent post at the start would bring about a return to the old C+ forum spirit....

Bonj, your comment about never having ridden one is a timely reminder to me of those people who rail against some of the Fringe shows here in Edinburgh, denouncing them as filth or blasphemous and then being forced to admit they've never seen the show. They always come out with that classic line about "I don't need to see it to know that it's disgusting and an affront" etc etc.

However, don't let me interrupt - do carry on, everyone ! This is great entertainment ;)
 
bonj said:
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.

A DF is diamond frame. The term upwrong is an alternative.


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.

So you never ride where there are vans, lorries or buses then?
Most recumbents are visible to a competent and awake driver. My Street Machine, Linear and Catrike are all higher than many sports cars- are they a liability in the same way?

Visibility is not an issue providing you ride sensibly, as with any bike, don't put yourself where you can't be seen.



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.
You have missed the point. In competent hands a recumbent will do anything a DF can, the suggestion is that if you are worried about making it through the gap on ANY bike you should query the wisdom of the move. I apply no different rules on my Trike, Brompton, Street Machine, Airnimal mountain or touring bikes.


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?
Because its fun!

It doesn't "need" to be a trike - In the same way as you get motorcycles with different formats, each has its own advantages. A trike with hydraulic front brakes downhill at 60 mph is more fun that any two wheeled bike at the same speed!

Are we suggesting that the existence of three wheeled motorcycles proves that two wheeled ones are unsafe - after all why else would three wheeled ones exist?

Horses for courses.


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?

Surely by this argument - riding an upright bike requires more blood pressure to pump oxygenated blood to the heart, lungs and brain as they are higher?
The body adapts, and will increase the efficiency of the vessels. Arguably a benefit in cardiovascular fitness.

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.

b7000.jpg


The point is that exercise bikes etc are supposed to make you work. Strange that most fitness equipment and manafacturers have apparently got this so wrong!

You quote Wikipedia. Look at the list of Exercise manafacturers they list - All have recumbents - simply because they have advantages.
Wikipedia - Exercise Cycle

In fact 4 chosen at random have recumbents listed before "ordinary" models

As for poncy parts of London - I have never needed to go to a gym. Cycling does all I need in the way of fitness, but then again commuting from Portsmouth to London would probably be overkill

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...

Both occur. I certainly only "lock" when pushing above 30. Most riding is simply comfortably seated. It certainly isn't necessary - think of it as standing on the pedals.


Never seen one with one.

Fairly basic gyms then


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.

Just as it would be on any bike....... The advantage is that with less strain on neck, arms and wrists you can travel further for the same effort and in more comfort.

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...

Off road riding such as this where the speeds are low, loose surfaces prevail and there is a chance of being "boardmanned" are were the performance characteristics of a helmet are best suited.

Add to this the decreased impact due to falling from a lower height and there is a possible benefit.

On road riding a helmet is less likely to benefit and I do not always wear one.

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

Yes Several!

Anyone who has ridden a trike down a fire road or similar will know what I mean, There are also the Haluzak and "Crankit" models:

traverse.jpg

quadflyingsnow.jpg


Finally - to illustrate Arch's point. I believe that Recumbents actually outsell tandems most years!
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.

Hmm... but I'm just confused as to why Cunobelin says that he does wear a helmet off-road, but doesn't on-road - where I would have thought the consequences of falling off would be greater, as the ground is harder and you're going faster.
I personally wear a helmet on road because of the potential of being knocked off by someone else and because the road's hard, I also wear one off-road because I like to ride trails that are technical enough to push my skill level, so by definition there is always a fair chance I will fall off (i.e. if there's not even a vague chance, then it's not difficult enough!) - but I wouldn't have thought that would be the case with a recumbent. Hence my jibe about 'do you get a downhill recumbent'.
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
Well, no - I haven't actually, it was a lie.

Oh, I'm going to bookmark this for future use..;)

As for:

"Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much me doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's you doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid."

'Opinions' being the operative word I think. I could have all sorts of opinions about ballroom dancing, but since I have bugger all experience of it, they'd be pretty invalid. I'm not sure where we've agreed that 'most of' bonji's opinions are valid...

"What 'performance characteristics' does a helmet have?"

A cycle helmet is designed to protect the head in a fairly low speed fall from a fairly low height, as I recall. So just the sort of circumstance possible in the situation described.
 

mosschops2

New Member
Location
Nottingham
Arch said:
Oh, I'm going to bookmark this for future use..;)

"Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much me doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's you doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid."

'Opinions' being the operative word I think. I could have all sorts of opinions about ballroom dancing, but since I have bugger all experience of it, they'd be pretty invalid. I'm not sure where we've agreed that 'most of' bonji's opinions are valid...

Do bookmark it Arch - it'll save me the bother!!

And the truth of the matter Mr B is not that I'm dismissing your "valid points", rather I'm disagreeing with your opinions. If that's ok!!

This time around, I'm (sort of) impressed that you owned up to the white lie, no big deal, more amused than anything, but once more you are simply claiming to have the majority view of something that you have no experience of.... I am genuinely interested in your opinion - seriously - as the points you raised are genuine areas for discussion, but you're credibility is only the same as the next bloke on the street...

It's hard to come up with an analogy which is as ridiculous... suggestions welcomed!!!
 

Tetedelacourse

New Member
Location
Rosyth
Are recumbents meant to be faster on average than "DFs"? I'd imagine they would certainly SEEM faster, being closer to the ground.

I think if I won the lottery I'd have one, but too much of a departure from what I know to replace my normal bike. Would love to have a shot of one. Hairy, you wouldn't happen to know how much they (Bikeworks) rent them out for would you? Can't find that info on their website.

ps Bonj you are entertaining.
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
"What 'performance characteristics' does a helmet have?"

A cycle helmet is designed to protect the head in a fairly low speed fall from a fairly low height, as I recall. So just the sort of circumstance possible in the situation described.

But riding a recumbent off road, if you fall off you're not going to hit your head very hard (because it's from a low height) on anything that hard (grass). You're probably not going to hit your head at all, because the low speed involved means you're going to know the crash is occurring or is going to occur before you have actually fallen that far, and will be able to put your arm out to save yourself.
The amount of effort you normally put into precautionary measures usually are proportional to the consequences of something happening AND the likeliness of it happening, one multiplied by the other. If something's very unlikely (e.g. getting struck by lightning), then you still don't take much precaution even if the consequences are disastrous. For something such as falling off a two-foot high bike going fairly slowly onto soft ground to take a precaution such as wearing a helmet, falling off must be pretty bloody likely even for an experienced rider such as I'm guessing Cunobelin is!
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
The amount of effort you normally put into precautionary measures usually are proportional to the consequences of something happening AND the likeliness of it happening, one multiplied by the other. If something's very unlikely (e.g. getting struck by lightning), then you still don't take much precaution even if the consequences are disastrous. For something such as falling off a two-foot high bike going fairly slowly onto soft ground to take a precaution such as wearing a helmet, falling off must be pretty bloody likely even for an experienced rider such as I'm guessing Cunobelin is!

Er, no... I wear a helmet pretty much everytime I ride my upright bike (but not so often on my recumbent trike, obviously). I don't often fall off (I think once in the last three or four years, when I swerved suddenly to avoid something). The 'effort' required to wear a helmet is so minimal to me, that I wear it anyway, despite not being all that concerned about falling off.

The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.

TDLC - it depends a bit on what upright and what recumbent you compare - just like comparing a knobbly MTB and a tourer and a TdF racer. But generally yes, a recumbent will be faster than an upright of a similar type, assuming riders of similar strength. I won't be faster on my trike (a touring type) than one of my much fitter stronger mates on an upright, but in a group of similar abilities and machine types, the recumbents will be faster. On the sort of mixed social rides I go on, recumbents are often in front, or taking it easy, to allow the rest to keep up.

Once you add a fairing, the difference is even more noticable.
 

bonj2

Guest
mosschops2 said:
This time around, I'm (sort of) impressed that you owned up to the white lie, no big deal, more amused than anything, but once more you are simply claiming to have the majority view of something that you have no experience of.... I am genuinely interested in your opinion - seriously - as the points you raised are genuine areas for discussion, but you're credibility is only the same as the next bloke on the street...
Well if you want my honest opinion, I think the concept of a recumbent is interesting. The possible comfort benefits, aswell as the unarguable aerodynamic benefits (even though I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is), make it an interesting concept. However. I simply cannot see how they can possibly be stable. Doing MTBing makes you realise exactly HOW you balance a bike by transferring your weight, and making minor adjustments from side to side - as opposed to commuting on my roadie where I just get on it and pedal. I just can't imagine how it could be possible to do this on a recumbent, so I look up information on them on the internet to find out if there's some magical alternative, but then I find articles like that wikipedia one confirming what I thought, that yes, they are harder to balance, for the exact reason that I imagined.
It's for this reason that I find it very difficult to believe that the reason they're not more popular is anything else. I don't suspect it's because they fundamentally don't work, or because of some loony left-wing sandal-wearing guardian-reading donkey-felching conspiracy of recumbent riding mince boilers, but just because of the fact that they're a lot harder to ride because of the fact they're more difficult to balance. Obviously there's a lot of people who have mastered it, and they would think it's easy because they can do it - but the physics of it suggests it's not as easy, the fact that some people can do it just means they have the skill to overcome the difficulties, not that it's as easy to do in the first place.
I wouldn't mind having a go on one, but certainly wouldn't replace my normal bike for one. The sort of thing they seem ideal for is these country parks where you can hire bikes and ride them round a lake.
 

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.

Hmm... but I'm just confused as to why Cunobelin says that he does wear a helmet off-road, but doesn't on-road - where I would have thought the consequences of falling off would be greater, as the ground is harder and you're going faster.
I personally wear a helmet on road because of the potential of being knocked off by someone else and because the road's hard, I also wear one off-road because I like to ride trails that are technical enough to push my skill level, so by definition there is always a fair chance I will fall off (i.e. if there's not even a vague chance, then it's not difficult enough!) - but I wouldn't have thought that would be the case with a recumbent. Hence my jibe about 'do you get a downhill recumbent'.
 

Tetedelacourse

New Member
Location
Rosyth
Isnt it like riding a bike?

My question was indeed assuming riders of equal ability and similar spec. bikes! Haven't got onto other comparisons yet, eg a mammoth on a bent vs an elephant on a DF.

Cheers, I thought I'd imagined that somewhere.
 
Top Bottom