First recumbent on my route

[Arch]

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricycles

"Adults may find upright tricycles difficult to ride due to familiarity with the counter-steering required to balance a bicycle. The variation in the camber of the road is the principal difficulty to be overcome once basic tricycle handling is mastered"

 

[bonj2]

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.

I'm not sure I personally would find it difficult, but I won't argue with your assertion that a lot of people do.

(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.)

That makes sense, I can see how that would happen. I think if I was trying to ride one my take on it would be to start off slowly and speed up as the way it moved through a corner became more ingrained...

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

Now don't get me started on horses, please - unless you really do want an argument. Remember this recumbent thread is an argument about something I don't particularly hate...

 

[classic33]

Going to confuse some people with this bit.
Where would I fit in to this argument over the number of wheels on a recumbent. Own & ride a Brox, ridden a ZEM 4 & ZEM 2. All have four wheels.
Also own & use a standard! upright(DF). Three wheels ridden on as well both upright & recumbent. Try a search on username & Pashley for one three wheeler owned & ridden.

Having read some of the posts it seems that what a person is unfamilar wuth frightens them. Or is that just me.

 

[bonj2]

This is the probably experience of most of the population trying to ride a recumbent bike:

Or alternatively:

he finally learns, but is still a bit wobbly:

"Oi! Naaow! The back wheel's supposed to land first!":

 

[bonj2]

Just a question: The trike in that last video i posted has 2 wheels at the FRONT, and ONE at the BACK. I thought it'd be the other way round. Are they all like that, or do they vary? Which is better?

 

[Arch]

Going to confuse some people with this bit.
Where would I fit in to this argument over the number of wheels on a recumbent. Own & ride a Brox, ridden a ZEM 4 & ZEM 2. All have four wheels.
Also own & use a standard! upright(DF). Three wheels ridden on as well both upright & recumbent. Try a search on username & Pashley for one three wheeler owned & ridden.

Having read some of the posts it seems that what a person is unfamilar wuth frightens them. Or is that just me.

Yup, I think that's highly likely...

What about a Conference Bike? Four wheels, but with the rear two so close together as to act as one, making it in effect a tadpole trike. And seven seats...

http://www.conferencebike.com/

<sits back and waits for far-off sound of bonj exploding>

 

[classic33]

Never ridden one of those, but I did get a go on thirty seater.
Hartshead, up above Brighouse.

 

[ufkacbln]

Question?

Is this:

more stable than this:

 

[goosander]

I don't know, but wow it hadn't even occurred to me that you could get tadpole upright trikes and that one has drop bars to boot!

 

[squeaker]

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.

Or alternatively:

Folding bikes (substitute your own favourite here) 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, discomfort and lack of speed is a significant negative factor and I am told that they do not go down hills as well as a recumbent. So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.

 

[Arch]

Question?

Is this:

more stable than this:

Good question. I understand tadpoles are generally more stable than deltas, but that tadpole is a more racy machine, whereas the delta is designed more for stability and load carrying. So I suspect they are about equal - taking into account the probably relative skill of the riders and the conditions in which they might be ridden... As always, it isn't black and white, is it?

Squeaker, good point. I really do wonder what a mainstream bike is? A £59 garage special with double-boing for no reason? A nicely set up city bike? A hybrid? A downhill MTB? A dropbar racer? All utterly different, and all suited to a niche (respectively: cheap; sensible; versatile; off-road; fast). As are folders and recumbents and tricycles and load carriers and...

 

[bonj2]

Question?

Is this:

more stable than this:

I can just see the point in the first one, it may be nice for grannies to go shopping on. But that second one is just absolute nonsense. What, actually, is the point in it?

 

[Arch]

What is the point of you, bonj?

 

[bonj2]

It's obviously been made by someone with a LOT more money AND time than sense.
Literally, what IS the point in having two wheels at the front when you only need one. It doesn't enable it to corner faster, fact. And your 'useful for a granny going shopping' excuse doesn't really work on this one 'cos it's a drop handlebar'd road bike. So there literally is no point to it whatsoever. It's like a dog with two arses and two tails but no head! It's a travesty, a complete abomination!

 

[Arch]

Suppose someone with a balance problem wanted to be able to go out on runs with their fast cycling mates? What is someone didn't want to be bothered with putting a foot down to balance when they stopped, maybe because they had joint problems? What if someone just wanted to ride something a bit different occasionally, because they were open to all sorts of experiences and liked the different riding style?

What is the point of you, bonj?