People calling non-recumbent bikes 'upwrongs'

[Andy in Sig]

A commonly held misconception. If recumbents were significantly better than the diamond frame bike they would be more popular.

I don't know how we judge "better" but I own both types and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the recumbent is better. I'll be buggered if I know how I can prove it though.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I tend to use DF (when typing) or Wedgie (when talking).
I'm sorely tempted to add 'ass hatchet' to the vocabulary. Splendid.

To make it a little less rude in a family situation, I'll be pronouncing it to rhyme with attaché.

"Yes, I'm on the dark side, but that's because my assachét turned out to be a spine popper."

Just call it a donkey axe. Unless of course he meant arse hatchet.

 

[squeaker]

Oh alright, Victorian bicycles it is, then

 

[Hilldodger]

I don't know how we judge "better" but I own both types and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the recumbent is better. I'll be buggered if I know how I can prove it though.

I own/have daily access to/ride a wider range of bkes and pedal powered machines than anyone else on here - and I don't think they're better

 

[Andy in Sig]

I own/have daily access to/ride a wider range of bkes and pedal powered machines than anyone else on here - and I don't think they're better

Then it probably makes sense to say that the feeling which my Street Machine induces in me when I'm belting along is something which I find infinitely more pleasurable to ditto on my steel framed tourer, which is an excellent bike of its kind. I suppose the reverse applies to you.

 

[byegad]

I think UCI killed off any prospect of recumbent becoming mainstream. They interest me, but currently I am quite happy with my 2 bikes and could not store any more.

Certainly the 74 years since the UCI ban has damaged 'bent sales and development. I feel the Mountain Bike revolution in the 80s has helped 'bents as people have become accustomed to seeing none standard frames as normal and so are more willing to try another shape bike. Standard being the classic two triangle frame of a UCI road race approved bike.

Ask yourself this, if a second string professional rider in 1933 and 1934 could demonstrate the recumbent Velocar as, at least in some circumstances, faster than the Dfs of the day. How would the rest of the professional curcuit have driven 'bent design in the intervening 74 years?

Whether the UCI was right or wrong to try to freeze cycle development in 1934, they did not entirely stop it. They have since the 'bent ban, to my knowledge, also banned DR Moulton's small wheels, and the Lotus bike as ridden to a new hour record by Chris Boardman. But we would be kidding ourselves to say that bike development has stood still. Lance Armstrong said it's not about the bike but it is, despite the UCI's head in the sand attitude. The Tour de France rider's bike of 2008 does not compare in any way to the 1934 bikes. They are lighter, have more gears, better brakes and are more easily put back on the road following a puncture due to QR wheels. In the fifties a racing bike had butterfly nuts not a QR skewer.

It is not possible to turn the clock back but 'bents are becoming more popular and they are developing, compare a 1990's Peter Ross Trike to the latest offering from ICE. Also the decimach prize has finally been claimed by Sam Whittingham at 82.33mph!!! over a flying 200m. Anyway the UCI will not change their mind and so the big money of the mass market will not be applied to building cheap and servicable 'bents and so they will, at least for the forseeable future, remain a small, but perhaps growing, percentage of total sales.

 

[Andy in Sig]

So there's obviously a need for a rival organisation to the UCI which allows any kind of bike and which just needs to run one national level event to get the necessary credence e.g. a tour of Britain. It could also go very heavy on drug testing to get it away from the current tainted version of cycling sport.

 

[Hilldodger]

In 1934 the UCI stopped recumbent bikes being raced against diamond frames and have continued to ban things they believe can give riders an unfair advantage.

This didn't stop BMX bikes being invented, becoming hugely popular and becoming a sport in it's own right.

It also didn't stop the invention and development of bikes like the Brompton.

At the recent Brompton world champs there were hundreds of people taking part in the first ever event.

At the HPV world champs a month or so earlier there was a fraction of that number at an event that has been going for years.

It's time some of the recumbent world stopped blaming the UCI for recumbents not becoming mainstream.

 

[BentMikey]

I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence.

 

[Hilldodger]

OK, I've altered it

 

[Fiona N]

A commonly held misconception. If recumbents were significantly better than the diamond frame bike they would be more popular.

Cobblers - small wheel bikes are better (faster) than 27inch/700 wheeled bikes and the UCI killed them off after Moultons started to take all the track and TT records. And how many small wheeled bikes do you see which aren't folders? Like recumbents, Moultons and similar non-folders are considered eccentric niche (and expensive) products. Except for really rough terrain (and mtbs are going to 29 inch wheels for that reason), small wheels are great.







Stir, stir

 

[Hilldodger]

Small wheeled bikes are awful, that's why the majority of adult bikes in the world have wheels around 26/27 inches.

And even that is too small.

 

[byegad]

I agree with Fiona_N, a UCI ban on any aspect of design has a tendancy to kill that advance. Without the 1934 ban I've no doubt there would be more, cheaper recumbents on the market. I'm not saying that there would be only recumbents, I'm sure there wouldn't be. Just as there are BMX, Road bikes, MTB's, track bikes, hybrids, tourers, folders and sit up and beg bikes available now, yet not all race under UCI auspices. However if recumbents had been part of the UCI mainstream since 1934 there would surely be some produced by the major manufacturers.

 

[BentMikey]

I agree with Fiona_N, a UCI ban on any aspect of design has a tendancy to kill that advance. Without the 1934 ban I've no doubt there would be more, cheaper recumbents on the market. I'm not saying that there would be only recumbents, I'm sure there wouldn't be. Just as there are BMX, Road bikes, MTB's, track bikes, hybrids, tourers, folders and sit up and beg bikes available now, yet not all race under UCI auspices. However if recumbents had been part of the UCI mainstream since 1934 there would surely be some produced by the major manufacturers.

+1, although I can see part of Roger's point that recumbents are not the one-fit-all solution some evangelists suggest.

 

[BentMikey]

Small wheeled bikes are awful, that's why the majority of adult bikes in the world have wheels around 26/27 inches.

And even that is too small.

LOL, that's funny considering the bike in your avatar!