Arch said:
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.
Arch said:
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.
Arch said:
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...
Arch said:
bonj said:
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.
Arch said:
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?
Arch said:
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?
Arch said:
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...