First recumbent on my route

[bonj2]

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

Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.

I don't ride a recumbent because I don't fancy the lower position

Fair enough...

I don't want to have to store it, I don't fancy the idea of leaving it locked at work.

These aren't disadvantages compared to normal bikes.

Whats this all about Bonj?

It's not about hatred of recumbents, I don't hate them - it's just that I'm bemused at the pretence by the recumbent brigade that they're just as worthy of being mainstream as normal bikes and it's almost comical the way it's banded about that the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!

 

[Arch]

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.

I was talking about your assertion that you wouldn't fall off on the track in Cunobelin's picture.

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.

Not having seen the TPT, I don't know. If it was uneven, I would be more likely to worry about falling off, which might make me tense, and therefore less in control. I'm quite happy to admit that I'm not physically confident, and take a long time to learn any new physical skill involving the risk of a fall.

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.

Firstly, when are the chances of falling off ever 'zero'? You are so supremely confident. Your logic is, as always twisted. I said (and I'm happy for him to tell me I'm wrong) that Cunobelin might be less experienced at off road than tarmac and percieve that he was more likely to have a spill. You're saying, 'well, if he had taken to off-road (and was as experienced as you, bonj, are), his chances of falling off are zero'. That's two different things - in my case, he's less experienced at off road, in yours, he's more experienced.

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?

Who said I wouldn't dream of three wheels on an upright? Would be quite fun to own an upright trike, but as I said before, lack of space and money...

So why did you 'fancy it more'?

Because it makes me feel more confident cornering at high speed (I don't like high speed cornering on two wheels, upright or recumbent) and it allows me to crawl up big hills in a very very low gear. Also, as I said, it was available for a low price. If the first thing I'd been offered cheap had been a Kingcycle for example, I'd have bought that, and simply restricted my cornering speed to what I feel comfortable at.

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...

Ooooh, get you, with your 'I put it to you... Did you always want to be a barrister then?

 

[mosschops2]

Hey Mr B - you're misquoting me there!!! I think you got me and Cab mixed up!!

 

[mosschops2]

Like the "I don't ride a 'bent, don't fancy the lower position". Wasn't me your honour!

 

[mosschops2]

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

It's just that you said somewhere, a road bike (inferred) is more stable than a 'bent, as it is higher. Whereas I'm preeeetty sure, that in theory, a 'bent should be more stable as it has a much lower centre of gravity.

The instability is therefore not the key issue, rather the difficulty in correcting instability. That was all!!

 

[mmoo]

the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!

But most people havn't heard of them (you have only recently come across DF and HPV, both common terms in the human power scene) and admitted you havn't even riden one so you can see what predjudice there is against anything different!

Advocates of different bike styles have a small but growing choice of manufacturers, for people keen to utilise their own mobility there are a wealth of alternatives not just what you get down halfords.

 

[Arch]

But most people havn't heard of them (you have only recently come across DF and HPV, both common terms in the human power scene) and admitted you havn't even riden one so you can see what predjudice there is against anything different!

Absolutely. I worked for a company for 4 years, which took loads of different bikes out to the public to try - not to sell any specific bike in any way, but to promote cycling generally. Very few people had ever seen a recumbent, and most who had a go loved them. Even the people who turned up on bikes often had no idea they existed.

In fact, a great many members of the general public, even those who ride bikes, have no idea about a huge number or things that 'we' take for granted. Folding bikes, hub gears, trailers, loadbikes... If you can't generally get it in Halfords, they don't know about it. We would have people who'd struggled for years on an uncomfortably stretched out MTB in the wrong size, overjoyed after trying a nice upright city bike, because it doesn't hurt their wrists and back so much. But they just never knew to find out... Usually, once you show them something and they have a go, if they have a need or a desire for that thing, they'll want to get one.

Due to small manufacturing numbers, recumbents have had relatively high prices (compared, certainly, with a Halfords bog standard). But they're getting more popular and cheaper and more and more people ARE going to get them. Maybe never as many as ride uprights, but it doesn't matter. If it suits the person buying it, that's the important thing.

 

[ufkacbln]

Just to clarify.

I average 18 - 22 mph on a recumbent on road, way out of the performance specifiation of even a Snell certified helmet. Hence there is no point in wearing a helmet in these conditions.

As for the "technical trails" anyone who has done the TPT will inform you that it is not "smooth trails". We abandoned due to flooding and blockage. The moorland areas are muddy . slippery and you are unable to gauge what is in the puddles. Hence experienced or not one should recognise the risk and assess whether a helmet might help. I would have worn a helmet on these strtches on any of the bikes including the MTBs.

I have ridden recumbents on and off road for some twenty years. I have competed the English / Welsh coasts and part of Scotland's. I have ridden the "Old Coach Road" on the C2C on a recumbent and in my younger days spent lots of time on the hills and moos of Dartmoor and Exmoor.

I am less experienced off road these days as I am putting in 100 - 160 miles a week of commuting on road as my main cycling.



PS

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Cab]

Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.

You have no evidence, nor reasoning, to back up that claim. Yet it is the entire premis of your argument; an argument that seems entirely needless.

It's not about hatred of recumbents, I don't hate them - it's just that I'm bemused at the pretence by the recumbent brigade that they're just as worthy of being mainstream as normal bikes and it's almost comical the way it's banded about that the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!

Yet your counter argument is just batty. They're wrong because you say so. Give it a rest.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.

That's my favourite part so far.

 

[ufkacbln]

Mr Picky!

Can I be really picky and point out that I don't "ride" or "steer" any of my recumbents..........................









































I "PILOT" them!

 

[bonj2]

Hey Mr B - you're misquoting me there!!! I think you got me and Cab mixed up!!

Possibly, sorry - I must have had an old quote tag in the clipboard and not re-copied.

It's just that you said somewhere, a road bike (inferred) is more stable than a 'bent, as it is higher. Whereas I'm preeeetty sure, that in theory, a 'bent should be more stable as it has a much lower centre of gravity.

The instability is therefore not the key issue, rather the difficulty in correcting instability. That was all!!

NO - you're either deliberately simplifying the physics analysis, or else you're too slow to keep up. I'm not sure which I suspect. But to reiterate it again, an upright bike is easier to balance because you've got your weight on the pedals, and thus it's much easier to make adjustments by shifting your body left and right, e.g. if you start to topple left, you shift your weight right to counteract this.
Physics states that an object will topple if its centre of gravity is not directly above its base. With a bike, the 'base' of the object is the contact patch of the tyres - only an inch or two. Thus it doesn't really matter how high the centre of gravity is, its lateral position is the only thing that matters - and this is easier to adjust on an upright bike. Maybe I should be using the term 'easier to balance' rather than 'more stable', but this is essentially the crux of it.

Not having seen the TPT, I don't know.

Well, it's a trekking trail. i.e. it's for families. Hence, easy to ride.

If it was uneven, I would be more likely to worry about falling off, which might make me tense, and therefore less in control. I'm quite happy to admit that I'm not physically confident, and take a long time to learn any new physical skill involving the risk of a fall.

Don't get me wrong - the above is true of me aswell. Some days I can't ride for toffeem, like today, for instance - had a right mare today, but sometimes I really impress even my critical self.
It's just that your definition of 'uneven' is probably slightly different to my definition of 'uneven'. (But in turn my definition of 'uneven' will be completely different again to some other people's definition of 'uneven'.)

Firstly, when are the chances of falling off ever 'zero'?

When you're on a really easy trail. e.g. the TPT, when there's not really any serious obstacles or other vehicles/bikes.

Your logic is, as always twisted. I said (and I'm happy for him to tell me I'm wrong) that Cunobelin might be less experienced at off road than tarmac and percieve that he was more likely to have a spill.

That might be the case. But the reason for that perception might be due to the fact that he's riding a recumbent, not an upright bike.

You're saying, 'well, if he had taken to off-road (and was as experienced as you, bonj, are), his chances of falling off are zero'.

Well the point is if he's riding on easy terrain then the chances of falling off should be zero - as they are on an upright bike. The point I'm trying to make is that they're only not zero because of the fact he's riding a recumbent, not a normal bike.

That's two different things - in my case, he's less experienced at off road, in yours, he's more experienced.

I don't know how experienced he is, probably best to wait till he offers up his own explanation.

Because it makes me feel more confident cornering at high speed

But surely if it's got three wheels you can't lean?

it allows me to crawl up big hills in a very very low gear.

Hmmm.. that's true I suppose, granted...

I average 18 - 22 mph on a recumbent on road, way out of the performance specifiation of even a Snell certified helmet. Hence there is no point in wearing a helmet in these conditions.

that's a ridiculous stream of logic. Surely if you crash and you're wearing a helmet when you hit your head on something at 18mph, then you're going to be less injured than if you weren't wearing a helmet, even if it doesn't mitigate injury as well as the Snell performance criteria specify?
It's like saying there's no point wearing a seatbelt on the motorway because if you crash you're going to die anyway.

As for the "technical trails" anyone who has done the TPT will inform you that it is not "smooth trails". We abandoned due to flooding and blockage. The moorland areas are muddy . slippery and you are unable to gauge what is in the puddles. Hence experienced or not one should recognise the risk and assess whether a helmet might help. I would have worn a helmet on these strtches on any of the bikes including the MTBs.

Hmmm....I still don't think it counts as 'technical' just 'cos it's a bit wet sometimes. But still, if you say that's why you wear a helmet then I believe you.
I still think your logic of thinking you're too fast for a helmet on road is ridiculous though.

Yet your counter argument is just batty. They're wrong because you say so. Give it a rest.

Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.

 

[Cab]

Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.

Maybe they're harder, maybe they're not. Doesn't matter, as most people haven't tried them so most people have no idea whether they're harder to balance your claim is irrelevent.

If ease of balance was the biggie in choosing what to ride, most people would be riding tricycles. Your stance is absurd, your position pointless.

 

[squeaker]

Proper bikes?

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.

Doubtless I'll regret asking this, but what's a 'proper' bike then? 2 wheels, but what size? Drops, straights, mary's, choppers? Rider inclined forwards, upright, or backwards. Diamond frame, open frame, Y-frame, ladies frame, mono-tube? Rigid, front suspension, rear suspension, sprung seat post, sprung handlebars? Single speed, fixie, hub gears, dérailleurs?
And FWIW, I'd never heard of, or seen, a recumbent bike until a few years ago, despite having cycled most of my life: UCI have a lot to answer for

 

[Arch]

When you're on a really easy trail. e.g. the TPT, when there's not really any serious obstacles or other vehicles/bikes.

So you rule out the possiblity of a deceptive patch of loose gravel? An animal running across the trail? A sudden puncture caused by a flint? What a wonderful world of certainty you live in...

Well the point is if he's riding on easy terrain then the chances of falling off should be zero - as they are on an upright bike. The point I'm trying to make is that they're only not zero because of the fact he's riding a recumbent, not a normal bike.

And the point I'm making is that the recumbent has nothing to do with it. Which is what Cunobelin seems to think himself. But of course, you know what's inside his own mind better than him, don't you...?

But surely if it's got three wheels you can't lean?

You've never ridden a trike have you, of any sort, since you were a toddler perhaps?

No, you can't lean like on a bike. But at high speed the rider leans to keep the inside wheel down, as the forces tend to tilt the trike outwards. If you ever watched upright trike racing, you'd see the riders leaning like this, the same as is done on motorbike-and-sidecar racing... If you want to show off and ride a trike on two wheels for a bit, you throw it into a turn and don't lean in, throwing the inside wheel up, and then control the balance as you ride. But I digress, that's just a party trick.

The reasons I corner faster on a recumbent trike are:

Being nearer the ground, I feel less precarious and more confident. Having three wheels and therefore having a wide total footprint and a low CoG, I am very very unlikely to tip over, whereas on two wheels, I have a greater fear of the wheels slipping out from under me as I lean, so I tend to slow down for corners.

One of the things people tend to do first when they get a go on a recumbent trike is test its cornering - which is much sharper than a bike of either sort. You can throw the trike at high speed into a sharp turn and the worst that happens is generally the rear wheel skidding out a little across the turn. When kids tried out something like the KMX on roadshows, our main task was to stop them doing it too much, because it gets expensive in tyres. People love the feeling - it makes you feel like you are driving in a Hollywood car chase.

On the road of course, that sort of acute turn isn't often necessary, but I can confidently let a much greater speed build up before a turn than I can on a bike.

Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.

Um... If we were being self-congratulatory, and we believed they were harder to ride, wouldn't we say "Well, the reason they aren't ridden is that they're harder to ride, and only we, the clever ones, have learnt?" Wouldn't we want to keep the secret to ourselves?