First recumbent on my route

[bonj2]

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.

What are you whittering on about?

 

[Arch]

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 would assume that he feels that off road, where the surface is loose or uneven, there is more chance of a spill than on tarmac. He may feel, as many do, that in the 'knocked off by a car' scenario, a helmet is less useful against the possible consequences and not worht his own percieved disadvantages (which I think we all know, having had the discussion several times before in other places).

Once again, it's a matter of personal choice, which is hugely variable. I know plenty of people who wear a helemt the whole time, and plenty who never do, whichever type of bike they are riding. You cannot base the relative safety of either type of bike on the helmet wearing choice of one rider. It's a basic statistics issue of small sample size and confounding variables.

You said before:

"but just because of the fact that they're a lot harder to ride because of the fact they're more difficult to balance."

Personally (and my opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's) I don't think recumbent bikes are harder to ride due being harder to balance - yes, I know what you've read on wiki, but I'm stating my opinion here remember. I think they are possibly harder to learn to ride (although many people can just get on one and go), especially if riding an upright is deeply ingrained. Once you've learnt, you can do it perfectly easily, just like any bike. Due to the various geometry, some are more stable than others, but that applies equally to uprights.

 

[bonj2]

I would assume that he feels that off road, where the surface is loose or uneven, there is more chance of a spill than on tarmac. He may feel, as many do, that in the 'knocked off by a car' scenario, a helmet is less useful against the possible consequences and not worht his own percieved disadvantages (which I think we all know, having had the discussion several times before in other places).

Yes, BUT - the chances of falling off shouldn't be greater just due to 'loose or uneven' surfaces! For me, anyway, the only thing that would cause me to fall off is taking the wrong line on a technical trail, OR, an idiot motorist. But, without wanting to belittle it or to scoff at trekking in any way which I wouldn't do as it IS extremely enjoyable, the trail that Cunobelin pictured himself riding (indeed any of the TPT) isn't terribly what I would call technical. In other words, if I was riding that on an upright bike - the chances of falling off would be zero! So if the chances of falling off on a recumbent aren't zero, then they must be less stable.

Once again, it's a matter of personal choice, which is hugely variable. I know plenty of people who wear a helemt the whole time, and plenty who never do, whichever type of bike they are riding. You cannot base the relative safety of either type of bike on the helmet wearing choice of one rider. It's a basic statistics issue of small sample size and confounding variables.

What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing why you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.

Due to the various geometry, some are more stable than others, but that applies equally to uprights.

Well uprights are more stable BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER, and thus self-correcting moments applied by shifting weight can be made more easily.
Do you understand this principle? It's to do with how much of an effect moving the body x centimetres to the right or left has on the moment about the pivot point with the road, i.e. the contact patch of the tyres.

Personally (and my opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's) I don't think recumbent bikes are harder to ride due being harder to balance - yes, I know what you've read on wiki, but I'm stating my opinion here remember. I think they are possibly harder to learn to ride (although many people can just get on one and go), especially if riding an upright is deeply ingrained. Once you've learnt, you can do it perfectly easily, just like any bike.

Well the laws of physics appear to contradict your opinion, as apparently do the opinions of lots of recumbent riders (the ones who wrote the wiki?), but you're still entitled to your opinion - you might personally find it easy, hence why it's a matter of opinion and not fact.
Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?

 

[mosschops2]

Well uprights are more stable BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER, and thus self-correcting moments applied by shifting weight can be made more easily.

That's not actually correct. Recumbent are more stable because they are lower.

However it is harder to correct a recumbent, as shifting weight is more difficult.

 

[mosschops2]

Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?

You can't actually be serious??

You're questioning someone's opinion, and question whether Arch in this case has had any experience??

Whilst you have none??

That's made my lunchtime!!!!!!!

 

[Tetedelacourse]

What are you whittering on about?

Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.

What are you whittering on about?

 

[Arch]

Yes, BUT - the chances of falling off shouldn't be greater just due to 'loose or uneven' surfaces! For me, anyway, the only thing that would cause me to fall off is taking the wrong line on a technical trail, OR, an idiot motorist. But, without wanting to belittle it or to scoff at trekking in any way which I wouldn't do as it IS extremely enjoyable, the trail that Cunobelin pictured himself riding (indeed any of the TPT) isn't terribly what I would call technical. In other words, if I was riding that on an upright bike - the chances of falling off would be zero! So if the chances of falling off on a recumbent aren't zero, then they must be less stable.

Well, you say you do a lot of dowhill technical riding. Therefore, you must be quite experienced at riding on that sort of surface and it seems like child play to you and you are very unlikely to fall off. Jolly good for you - very impressive. Personally, I don't ride on gravelly or uneven surfaces a lot, so I don't have the practice, I don't enjoy them very much, I would be more likely to come a cropper. I can't speak for Cunobelin, but if he happens to ride more on tarmac, he may feel that it's wise to take precautions on a less smooth surface. IF you learned to ride a recumbent, and took to going off road on it, you'd probably feel that your chances of falling off on that trail were zero on a recumbent or an upright.

My recumbent is a trike, so I have no worries about stability at all. If I had a bike, I think my worries about surfaces would be the same for the upright and the recumbent.

What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing why you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.

Yes, I know. What's your point?

Well the laws of physics appear to contradict your opinion, as apparently do the opinions of lots of recumbent riders (the ones who wrote the wiki?), but you're still entitled to your opinion - you might find it easy.

Can you tell me how many recumbent riders collaborated to write that article? I mean, I don't know, but if it is the work of one person, why is it more valid than my opinion...

Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?

Yes, no and no.

Yes:
I've ridden, ooh, at a rough guess, six or seven different recumbent bikes, maybe more. Some I found perfectly easy to handle, some (more like racing machines) I had more trouble with - often because the one available to try is too big for me. I would probably be a bit twitchy on an all-carbon roadbike with drops, if it was too big for me.

No:
Because I don't own one. Sometimes I get to try-out others, but many of my friends are taller than me, so their bikes often don't fit me.

No:
Because I have limited money to buy luxuries, I already have three bikes and a trike, and I currently live in a flat with limited storage. If I had the money and the space, I'd have one. I have a trike because I fancied one of those more, and got a chance to get one very cheaply.

 

[Arch]

Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.

Exactly.

What are you whittering on about?

 

[mmoo]

I simply cannot see how they can possibly be stable.

and yet they are, even ones we build ourselves! I did 1000 miles on mine over the year it was roadworthy and despite it being noisy, hard to lug up stairs and an apparent magnet for stupid coments it was the most fun I'd had on a bike and it was a revelation to get off after 40 miles and be buzzing rather than aching.

 

[bonj2]

Well, you say you do a lot of dowhill technical riding. Therefore, you must be quite experienced at riding on that sort of surface and it seems like child play to you and you are very unlikely to fall off. Jolly good for you - very impressive.

Well, I wouldn't strictly call what I do 'downhill', but it's a lot more like downhill than say the TPT is. And I wouldn't say I'm 'very unlikely' to fall off - that's why I wear a helmet.

Personally, I don't ride on gravelly or uneven surfaces a lot, so I don't have the practice, I don't enjoy them very much, I would be more likely to come a cropper. I can't speak for Cunobelin, but if he happens to ride more on tarmac, he may feel that it's wise to take precautions on a less smooth surface.

But I dispute the fact that anyone would be 'likely to come a cropper' at all on an upright bike on the TPT, unless they were blind raving drunk, or a child who didn't know how to ride a bike at all without stabilisers (or both).
If you rode the TPT, you wouldn't 'come a cropper' - why would you? You might not enjoy it as much as something smooth that you normally like riding on, and you might not be used to it and might not go that fast, but you wouldn't fall off just because it's a bit of an uneven surface.

IF you learned to ride a recumbent, and took to going off road on it, you'd probably feel that your chances of falling off on that trail were zero on a recumbent or an upright.

Well Cunobelin obviously doesn't! That's my point...

What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing why you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.

Yes, I know. What's your point?

You said, if you took to going off road on a recumbent (as Cunobelin has), then you'd probably feel your chances of falling off would be zero. So for that to be true, the only other possible reason Cunobelin is wearing a helmet while doing that is due to him blindly following others like sheep, as protection from injury due to falling off can't be the reason as apparently the chances of that are zero. So in other words, you've effectively called Cunobelin a sheep. I'm sure he'll like that.

Can you tell me how many recumbent riders collaborated to write that article? I mean, I don't know, but if it is the work of one person, why is it more valid than my opinion...

Probably lots. I would imagine one person started it and others added bits to it. It's only stayed in wikipedia because it's the general consensus of lots of people's opinions, if it wasn't, then people would edit it out wouldn't they?
If you think your opinion that they're just as stable as upright bikes is valid, then why don't you put something to that effect in the wikipedia article?

Yes:
I've ridden, ooh, at a rough guess, six or seven different recumbent bikes, maybe more. Some I found perfectly easy to handle, some (more like racing machines) I had more trouble with - often because the one available to try is too big for me. I would probably be a bit twitchy on an all-carbon roadbike with drops, if it was too big for me.

So if some are perfectly easy to handle, why have you got three wheels on your own one rather than two? You wouldn't dream of having three wheels on an upright, so why on a recumbent?

I have a trike because I fancied one of those more, and got a chance to get one very cheaply.

So why did you 'fancy it more'? I put it to you, that you got a recumbent trike rather than a recumbent bike because you find recumbent bikes harder to balance on. Because they ARE harder to balance on. But feel free to disagree...

 

[bonj2]

Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.

Probably. But that's not the issue. The issue is not whether it's possible to remain balanced, but how likely it is you'll remain upright, how easy it is to stay balanced.
To sum it up, it seems like I'm correctly pointing out that recumbents are harder to balance, and the recumbent brigade appear to be trying to sweep that under the carpet by saying that it's at least possible to stay balanced, so it doesn't matter that it's harder. But I don't get why there's this pretence. It doesn't matter that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.

 

[mosschops2]

Fair stance - I can see what you're saying.

But I don't agree!! I don't think that the fact they are harder to balance is disputed (which I agree with - although apparently from a completely different basis from you - as you think higher means more balanced - but we'll ignore the semantics for now).

But - I do not believe that this is the single biggest reason that they are unpopular.


How about this then.

In my experience of road bikes, they are more difficult to balance than mountain bikes (having owned and ridden both btw!).

On this basis, road bikes must be much less popular, as they are less stable.

(Clearly that's a terrible argument!!! But hey!!!)

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Probably. But that's not the issue. The issue is not whether it's possible to remain balanced, but how likely it is you'll remain upright, how easy it is to stay balanced.
To sum it up, it seems like I'm correctly pointing out that recumbents are harder to balance, and the recumbent brigade appear to be trying to sweep that under the carpet by saying that it's at least possible to stay balanced, so it doesn't matter that it's harder. But I don't get why there's this pretence. It doesn't matter that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.

Just giving clarification where asked for.

 

[Cab]

It doesn't matter that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.

Whether its harder to balance on a recumbent or not, your claim that this is why less people ride recumbents is pure speculation.

I don't ride a recumbent because I don't fancy the lower position, I don't want to have to store it, I don't fancy the idea of leaving it locked at work. It has nothing to do with it being harder to balance on.

Frankly, I don't see the purpose or the direction of your argument. Whats this all about Bonj?

 

[bonj2]

Fair stance - I can see what you're saying.

But I don't agree!! I don't think that the fact they are harder to balance is disputed (which I agree with - although apparently from a completely different basis from you - as you think higher means more balanced - but we'll ignore the semantics for now).

My reasoning is based on physics, if you disagree - please state which part of my reasoning you think is wrong or irrelevant.

In my experience of road bikes, they are more difficult to balance than mountain bikes (having owned and ridden both btw!).

They are slightly, but not much.

On this basis, road bikes must be much less popular, as they are less stable.

They are less popular, but not much less. They're not MUCH less stable, only a bit.