First recumbent on my route

[Arch]

Doubtless I'll regret asking this, but what's a 'proper' bike then?

In bonji's view, one like what he rides, innit?

 

[Amanda P]

Blimey, are you lot still at it in here?

Haven't you noticed that the sun is shining?

 

[bonj2]

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...

yadda yadda yadda, yeah yeah yeah. It boils down to the same old "but you could get struck by lightning so you might aswell stay in bed all day" argument. What risk assessment means to me is that once the risk becomes so improbable as to be insignificant, you don't consider it as a risk.

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.

Yes, you can get the back end to step out - and yes it is fun. You can do it with go-karts, which are a lot of fun, but - I don't know whether this is the same with trikes, but when I last went go-karting the first few laps I was wrenching the wheel round at top speed and steering back into it when the back end stepped out and it was tremendous fun doing that, but after having done it for a few laps I realised that it was acutally not as fast if you do that, and if you brake late and take the racing line at the correct speed with all the wheels planted then you gain a bit on the guy in front who's been sliding.

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?

Yes, I really don't know why you're not doing that. This is why it completely bemuses me that people want to seem to pretend that they're some way mainstream.

 

[Arch]

Yes, you can get the back end to step out - and yes it is fun. You can do it with go-karts, which are a lot of fun, but - I don't know whether this is the same with trikes, but when I last went go-karting the first few laps I was wrenching the wheel round at top speed and steering back into it when the back end stepped out and it was tremendous fun doing that, but after having done it for a few laps I realised that it was acutally not as fast if you do that, and if you brake late and take the racing line at the correct speed with all the wheels planted then you gain a bit on the guy in front who's been sliding.

Absolutely. But that's not what we're talking about is it - I'm just saying that you can corner faster on a recumbent trike than on a bike, because you have better grip and less chance of slipping over.

Yes, I really don't know why you're not doing that.

Perhaps because it (telling people we are cleverer because the bikes are harder to ride) isn't true?

This is why it completely bemuses me that people want to seem to pretend that they're some way mainstream.

What IS mainstream, again? And why does it matter anyway? Can you tell us of the time you've been disadvantaged in anyway by not being interested in recumbents? So what's your problem with whether thay are 'mainstream' or not and whether people believe it or not?

 

[gavintc]

This must rate as one of the most bizarre threads I have come across. Recumbents are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, visibility is a significant negative factor and I am told that they do not climb hills as well as a normal bike. So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.

 

[Arch]

This must rate as one of the most bizarre threads I have come across. Recumbents are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, visibility is a significant negative factor

That's common perception. Although people who do ride them will testify that you are far more noticable, if that's the aspect of visibility you mean.

and I am told that they do not climb hills as well as a normal bike.

Who by? In my experience, it's the rider that climbs the hill, not the bike. I'll often be beaten up hills by a recumbent rider, when I'm on the upright. And on three wheels, you'll conquer any hill, with a suitable low gear.

So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.

Fair enough. But you haven't come here and ranted on about recumbent owners having some sort of superiority complex, have you? Because you're a grown up...

BTW, if you ever get the chance, do at least have a go on one, especially on a trike, where you have no learning curve to cope with. It's great fun!

 

[Amanda P]

BTW, if you ever get the chance, do at least have a go on one, especially on a trike, where you have no learning curve to cope with. It's great fun!

... and Arch isn't saying this because she feels superior, or because she is desperate for recumbents to become mainstream...

... but because she enjoys riding one, and being the generous soul that she is, wants you to experience that enjoyment too.

 

[bonj2]

Absolutely. But that's not what we're talking about is it - I'm just saying that you can corner faster on a recumbent trike than on a bike, because you have better grip and less chance of slipping over.

Maybe.

Perhaps because it (telling people we are cleverer because the bikes are harder to ride) isn't true?

OK. I think they're harder to ride, and I've stated a logical explanation for why, which is backed up by wikipedia - which incidentally I hadn't read before I thought of the reason they would be harder to balance.
You think they're NOT harder to ride, despite the fact that even though you're so happy with two wheels on an upright bike you've got 3 of them but not so with a recumbent, you haven't really got any counter argument to my/wikipedia's logical explanation, and the fact that recumbent riders in this thread have admitted that they don't think anyone would dispute that they're harder to balance.
I think one thing, you think the opposite. Nothing wrong with that.

What IS mainstream, again?

Well, wikipedia defines it as
* something that is ordinary or usual;
* something that is familiar to the masses;
* something that is available to the general public.
All of those I would say are true of upright bikes (ignoring the clash with the term 'ordinary bike' which is no longer ordinary).

And why does it matter anyway?

It doesn't matter! The way the recumbent brigade try to make false pretences about them being mainstream just annoys me. Nothing more than that.

Can you tell us of the time you've been disadvantaged in anyway by not being interested in recumbents? So what's your problem with whether thay are 'mainstream' or not and whether people believe it or not?

I just get annoyed by smugness.

 

[Arch]

Maybe.

You think they're NOT harder to ride, despite the fact that even though you're so happy with two wheels on an upright bike you've got 3 of them but not so with a recumbent

I think I've told you at least twice now that I have a trike partly because it was the recumbent that was available at a price I could afford. If someone had offered me a recumbent bike for the same price, I'd have bought that.

I still think, if anything, they are harder to learn to ride, rather than harder to ride. Once you have the skill, just like on a bike, you get on with it. If I'm in a minority, fair enough. I'm just judging on personal experience.

I just get annoyed by smugness.

I'm still wondering when anyone has been 'smug' about it all?

 

[Amanda P]

I suspect that if someone first learned to ride a bike on a recumbent, they'd find an upright bike quite hard to learn when they came to it.

We only think recumbents are harder to get used to because we all learn to ride upright bikes first, and have to un-learn some things to get the hang of 'bents.

I merely throw in this observation to muddy the water a bit more.

 

[Arch]

I suspect that if someone first learned to ride a bike on a recumbent, they'd find an upright bike quite hard to learn when they came to it.

We only think recumbents are harder to get used to because we all learn to ride upright bikes first, and have to un-learn some things to get the hang of 'bents.

I merely throw in this observation to muddy the water a bit more.

Quite correct. It's the same with upright bikes/trikes. People who ride bikes a lot often find riding a tricycle very difficult, because it's a different technique. People who don't ride a bike much are usually fine - fewer ingrained habits.

 

[bonj2]

Quite correct. It's the same with upright bikes/trikes. People who ride bikes a lot often find riding a tricycle very difficult, because it's a different technique. People who don't ride a bike much are usually fine - fewer ingrained habits.

How can riding a trike possibly be difficult? It's like riding a horse. You just sit on it, and pedal - and it goes. Simple as.

 

[bonj2]

Once you have the skill, just like on a bike, you get on with it. If I'm in a minority, fair enough. I'm just judging on personal experience.

Yes but your experience isn't OF riding a two-wheeled recumbent, so how can you 'judge on personal experience'?

 

[Arch]

How can riding a trike possibly be difficult? It's like riding a horse. You just sit on it, and pedal - and it goes. Simple as.

An upright trike? When did you last ride one?

No, really. Many bike riders find an upright trike quite difficult to get used to, because of the different turning dynamics. Like you said before, you don't lean in the same way, and that can really confuse your brain and inner ear, because you think you ought to be leaning to turn and you're not. Don't argue this one, please, I've seen it happen hundreds of times, and many cyclists who try a tricycle have found out about it.

(My theory is that because you aren't leaning, your brain, expecting you to lean, makes you think you are leaning the other way - almost like an optical illusion, but in the inner ear. So, many people start to turn one way, and end up swerving the other way, trying to correct for something that isn't happening.)

I've seen really experienced cyclists give up trying to handle an upright trike, because it seems to want to make them turn the wrong way. I've also seen a gran who couldn't ride a bike get on and pedal off, happy as anything. Because she didn't have anything to unlearn.

As for horses, I guess you haven't ridden one of those recently either. I mean properly, not a donkey on a beach.

 

[Arch]

Yes but your experience isn't OF riding a two-wheeled recumbent, so how can you 'judge on personal experience'?

But I have ridden two wheel recumbents, I just don't happen to own one. I told you that before too, when you asked me how many I'd ridden.