I have an azub 6 and a lightning p-38.
I consider them to be more as types of craft than mere bikes!![]()
As I understand it the UCI didn't ban recumbents, merely introduced a set of regulations which made it impossible for a 'bent to comply with. It has the same effect but doesn't see them being accused of outlawing a particular type of bike from competition. Same as with Graeme Obree's hour record bike, the UCI declared that the riders chest couldn't rest on the handlebars, which his bike sort of relied on.
Answering the original question, a quick Google turned this up;
Bicycle
/ˈbʌɪsɪkl/
Noun
A vehicle consisting of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.
So a two-wheel 'bent can be defined thus.
Of course they are bikes.
The OP has posted a variation on the same question many times now.
I think his grievance is that DF bikes are dominant and he thinks recumbents should be and he blames the UCI for this .
Total nonsense of course. In fine weather on a flat road riding a recumbent is something everyone should try - it's serious fun.
Riding in traffic, going up hill and general manouvrablity are imo what stops them being more popular. Not saying there aren't people who master those techniques on a bent are riding bent and loving it.
But UCI ban is imo a very tiny part of why recumbents are very niche.
Including electric assisted trike by any chance?How about letting riders pick any kind of bike they want for the terrain being raced on that day?
How about letting riders pick any kind of bike they want for the terrain being raced on that day?
Regulating them out of competition is the same as banning them.