alternate theories about why recumbents don't sell

[Unreliable Narrator]

a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
stirring debate, i'm posting.

1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
recumbent to a regular bike.

a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.

2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
worried about looking like geeks. practically no one rides them, so a
guy riding one draws attention, which most people--men or women--hate.
and most of them--actually all of them--are awkward looking, relative
to an upright bike. usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
often on a tube extending forward from the frame. the drivetrain is a
couple of feet long, stretching in space from the pedals to the rear
hub. steering is either by "chopper" handlebars or handlebars
positioned by the rider's pelvis. the most attractive of a
funny-looking lot are the electras, which aren't marketed as
recumbents.

ymmv.

chris

 

[[email protected]]

On 16 Jan 2007 16:47:03 -0800, "Unreliable Narrator"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
>me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
>stirring debate, i'm posting.
>
>1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
>elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
>suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
>men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
>an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
>purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
>men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
>recumbent to a regular bike.
>
>a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
>fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
>through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
>work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.
>
>2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
>worried about looking like geeks. practically no one rides them, so a
>guy riding one draws attention, which most people--men or women--hate.
>and most of them--actually all of them--are awkward looking, relative
>to an upright bike. usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
>often on a tube extending forward from the frame. the drivetrain is a
>couple of feet long, stretching in space from the pedals to the rear
>hub. steering is either by "chopper" handlebars or handlebars
>positioned by the rider's pelvis. the most attractive of a
>funny-looking lot are the electras, which aren't marketed as
>recumbents.
>
>ymmv.
>
>chris

Dear Chris,

Here's a woman bike rider with her "handlebars positioned by the
rider's pelvis":

http://www.glumbert.com/media/bikerobatics

One reason that recumbents don't catch on is that kids are the primary
bicycle market, and kids can't fool around with a recumbent:

http://www.glumbert.com/media/drifting

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Werehatrack]

On 16 Jan 2007 16:47:03 -0800, the aptly self-described "Unreliable
Narrator" <[email protected]> allegedly said:

>a recent thread that turned into an argument

That was never an Argument!

>over recumbents reminded
>me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
>stirring debate, i'm posting.

Debate should only be stirred when dewater is still and dey is startin
to swim funny at desurface.

>1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position,

Not necessarily; in fact, not even commonly, based on the visible
population of 'bents around here.

>with the legs
>elevated

Elevated relative to the position on a conventional frame, yes;
elevated relative to the hips, not necessarily.

>and spread (to pedal).

Unless the 'bent is badly designed, no more so than on a conventional
frame; the crank assemblies are, after all, identical.

>to my way of thinking, the position
>suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
>men--

Do not project your own insecurities on to others. Not all of us
share your problem, and many of us don't want to hear about it.

>particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
>an upright bike places the rider in.

Riding bent over with one's ass in the air is *masculine*? Bubba, you
ain't met most of the good ole boys down to the ice house, have you?
They would strenuously disagree. (And one of them rides a 'bent,
BTW.)

>since the majority of adult bike
>purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
>men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
>recumbent to a regular bike.

You haven't seen enough 'bents, you haven't read the minds of enough
men to know what they think, and you're making gross (and not even
defensible) generalizations without the benefit of actual data in both
instances. Score zero on that one.

>a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
>fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
>through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
>work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.

You haven't looked at the folks riding around here. True, the vast
majority of road bikes are both horizontal-top-tube designs *and*
ridden by men, but once you leave that category, it's far from
uncommon to see a guy on a drop-frame bike. The biggest reason that
they don't is that most frop-frames are too small. Try finding a
drop-frame in a 59cm size. It's close to impossible.

In the case of the road bike riders, I don't think you can prove
psychological causation for them either; if you've ever ridden a
drop-frame roadie, you will know that the added flex in the frame and
complexity of cable routing (relative to the same model with a
conventional layout) is enough to cause problems. On the other hand,
the popularity of compact-frame roadies, which feature a sloping top
tube, is increasing with good reason...for both sexes of rider.

>2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
>worried about looking like geeks. practically no one rides them, so a
>guy riding one draws attention, which most people--men or women--hate.

Don't know too many cyclists, eh?

>and most of them--actually all of them--are awkward looking, relative
>to an upright bike.

And you haven't seen many 'bents from *my* point of view. The most
common reaction I've heard was "What was that thing? It looks like
fun!". When I tell them the price, the reaction moderates to "Not
*that* much fun."

>usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
>often on a tube extending forward from the frame. the drivetrain is a
>couple of feet long, stretching in space from the pedals to the rear
>hub. steering is either by "chopper" handlebars or handlebars
>positioned by the rider's pelvis. the most attractive of a
>funny-looking lot are the electras, which aren't marketed as
>recumbents.
>
>ymmv.

You betcha.

The number one and two reasons why so few 'bents are sold are
extremely simple and obvious.

For the average bike buyer, they cost too much.

For the performance bike buyer, they aren't what that kind of rider is
looking to buy.

About that latter category, whether the buyers intend to actually
engage in competition or not, they want to *appear* that they
could...and anyone familiar with bike racing is aware that 'bents are
not permitted in the majority of types of competition. Anyone who is
not familiar with bike racing stands a good chance of not having any
concept that 'bents exist as an option, and/or not wanting one because
it just Doesn't Look Like What Lance[1] Rides....and Everybody Knows
That Lance Rides The Good Stuff.

Salesmen tend to sell what the customers ask for. If the customers
come in wanting road bikes, the salesman is likely to try to sell them
what they want from among the ones on the sales floor, possibly having
to order a different size of a model that's on hand. If they come in
wanting 'bents, they'll most likely get shown a bunch of illustrations
in catalogs. Which approach do you think is going to generate more
sales?

"Why aren't more 'bents sold?" is as much of a chicken-and-egg issue
as anything else. Until 'bents become more visibly popular, there
aren't likely to be many people coming in to buy one...and until more
people come in to buy one, they aren't going to be in showrooms or on
the road in numbers sufficient to be perceived as popular.

The herd mentality is a much more powerful force in *this* regard than
in the manner that you posited.



[1] We're talking the generic Lance here. the guy that the buyer
perceives as Mr Real Bike Rider, whoever it may be. It could be
shaped by somebody at work, somebody they've seen on ESPN, or
whatever.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[DougC]

Unreliable Narrator wrote:
> a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
> me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
> stirring debate, i'm posting.
>
> 1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
> elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
> suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
> men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
> an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
> purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
> men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
> recumbent to a regular bike.
>
In my experience, it is women that are more conscious about riding a
recumbent than men are.

Beyond that, I tend to think it has to do with the fact that recumbents
aren't as economical to make or buy, because of the matter of
economy-of-scale. The segment of the population that could most benefit
from recumbents (people who don't ride at all because they think it's
uncomfortable) are also the people who are least likely to spend a lot
of money on a bicycle (because they don't expect it will be very
enjoyable, or useful).

As for what bike shops sell, when selecting bicycles to sell they
balance the criteria of dealer support and low prices, and from then on
they [mostly] just push what they have on their floor. A typical bike
shop would rather sell you a dozen different saddles than tell you where
else to go to buy a bike that doesn't hurt to ride.

> a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
> fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
> through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
> work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.
>

Step-throughs aren't that much more convenient than a normal bike. They
do nothing to address the two main complaints of riding, which are
saddle pain and hand numbness.

> 2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
> worried about looking like geeks. practically no one rides them, so a
> guy riding one draws attention, which most people--men or women--hate.
> and most of them--actually all of them--are awkward looking, relative
> to an upright bike. usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
> often on a tube extending forward from the frame. the drivetrain is a
> couple of feet long, stretching in space from the pedals to the rear
> hub. steering is either by "chopper" handlebars or handlebars

This I somewhat agree with. In the USA, bicycles are typically seen as
more recreational than practical, and there is a tremendous amount of
peer pressure among upright riders to buy "racing" parts and bikes, if
they will ever need them or not, or even if they will be /comfortable/
on them or not. I have seen many times, even people who have extensive
problems with riding comfort on upright bikes will not consider anything
else, even though riding comfort is the main advantage of recumbents,
and most of these same people have never entered nor do they plan on
entering any sanctioned event that would require a UCI-legal bike.

> the most attractive of a
> funny-looking lot are the electras, which aren't marketed as
> recumbents.
>

Ummm,,,, Electras are NOT recumbents, not even close.
The Electras are a relaxed-geometry frame, most-likely built on a
regular production line (and limited by the geometry range that line
tooling can provide).
~

 

[Dane Buson]

Unreliable Narrator <[email protected]> wrote:
> usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
> often on a tube extending forward from the frame.

Actually, this is one of the few attractive things about some 'bents to
me. The idea of having a nice toothy set of chainrings as my forward
aspect is appealing. Not so friendly for pedestrians admittedly, but
hopefully getting a 52 teeth chainring in their door might give idiot
drivers pause.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
THE LESSER-KNOWN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES #17: SARTRE

Named after the late existential philosopher, SARTRE is an extremely
unstructured language. Statements in SARTRE have no purpose; they just are.
Thus SARTRE programs are left to define their own functions. SARTRE
programmers tend to be boring and depressed, and are no fun at parties.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Unreliable Narrator" <[email protected]> wrote:

> a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
> me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
> stirring debate, i'm posting.
>
> 1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
> elevated and spread (to pedal).
>
> a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
> fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
> through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
> work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.
>
> 2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
> worried about looking like geeks.

The recumbents that are truly aero tend to be clumsy to maneuver and
heavy. The recumbents that are aero and light tend to be really clumsy
and the position doesn't allow for easy looking around. The really aero
(fully faired) bikes are typically clumsy and heavy, plus they get wacky
in sidewinds.

Basically, the more aerodynamically efficient a recumbent gets, the less
likely it will be pleasant to ride around on normal roads. It also
becomes more fussy: without wanting to fall into the trap of defining
the major differences as the major advantages of a DF bike, anyone with
a modicum of skill can ride an upright bike up or down a curb, use body
weight to mitigate the effect of road obstacles (potholes, speed bumps,
etc.).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Michael Warner]

On 16 Jan 2007 16:47:03 -0800, Unreliable Narrator wrote:

> a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
> me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
> stirring debate, i'm posting.

To really get the aero benefits of a recumbent, it needs to be long and low
to the ground. As a city dweller I need to be able to see over as
much traffic as possible, turn sharply to thread my way between cars and
other obstacles and hop on and off footpaths. A recumbent would be
suicidal in these conditions. I may be heading for the hills, but I don't
want to get hit on the way there.

And then there's group riding, which I do a lot. Unless everyone else
also rode a recumbent, I wouldn't be able to see much when not at
the front, which'd be dangerous again.

ISTM that the only kind of rider likely to avoid these problems is
one who lives and rides alone outside cities.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Mark Hickey]

Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Unreliable Narrator <[email protected]> wrote:
>> usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
>> often on a tube extending forward from the frame.
>
>Actually, this is one of the few attractive things about some 'bents to
>me. The idea of having a nice toothy set of chainrings as my forward
>aspect is appealing. Not so friendly for pedestrians admittedly, but
>hopefully getting a 52 teeth chainring in their door might give idiot
>drivers pause.

But it's normally the driver who doesn't see you that will do you in.
And of course, they're much less likely to see you on a 'bent.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[dabac]

a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
stirring debate, i'm posting.

1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
recumbent to a regular bike.

You know, I've never thought about in a way even remotely similar to this, supine=female=passivity? prone=masculine? A forced connection at best.
Now I think I see - you're hinting at the missionary position, aren't you?

a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.

When I see step-throughs my first thoughts are "flexy and/or heavy", not "that's a woman's bike". A second consideration would be "a bike belonging to someone who favors ease of mount/dismount prior to snappy response". (which quite incidentially often happens to be a woman)

I 've had two step-throughs, one was beater that I'd gotten for free. It was unpleasantly flexy already from the start and eventually cracked, although admittedly helped along by substantial amounts of rust. The other was a 10 speed road bike with a so-called mixte frame, another freebie. I rode it because it was the one available, but flex and weight was an issue and I retired it as soon as I'd gotten myself another bike. The fork became a truing stand and the frame was cut up for its tubes.

I'd gladly consider a step through, but until it can be given the rigidity and weight of a diamond frame it will remain a second choice for everything but sedate riding.

2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
worried about looking like geeks.

If I don't worry about being seen in public wearing bike pants I'm certainly not about to start worrying about the shape of my bike!
Well, maybe if it was strange enough to cause other riders/drivers to lose concentration...

The main reason why I earlier didn't even try a 'bent was availability. I must have been around 15 when I first saw one IRL. That was also the first one in "practical" configuration, the pics I can remember prior to that had all been full fairing race bikes, or pedal cars.

The reason why I still haven't tried one is again availability, backed up by cost and storage space. Today I know where to get one, but w/o any experience it's hard to know whether it'd be worth it. Today I also quite probably have the fabricating skills and most of the parts needed to build one. That would pretty much solve the cost issue, but then again, it's not like I NEED to find another project either...

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Unreliable Narrator wrote:
> a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
> me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
> stirring debate, i'm posting.
>
> 1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
> elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
> suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
> men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
> an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
> purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
> men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
> recumbent to a regular bike.
>
> a similar thing probably happens for step-throughs, by virtue of the
> fact that most people think of them as "women's bike's." the step
> through is a practical choice for many purposes--particularly biking to
> work in regular pants--but you rarely see a guy one.
>
> 2) i think a lot of guys wouldn't consider a recumbent since they're
> worried about looking like geeks. practically no one rides them, so a
> guy riding one draws attention, which most people--men or women--hate.
> and most of them--actually all of them--are awkward looking, relative
> to an upright bike. usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
> often on a tube extending forward from the frame. the drivetrain is a
> couple of feet long, stretching in space from the pedals to the rear
> hub. steering is either by "chopper" handlebars or handlebars
> positioned by the rider's pelvis. the most attractive of a
> funny-looking lot are the electras, which aren't marketed as
> recumbents.
>
> ymmv.
>
> chris

This is gonna be interesting..gonna just watch this'en.

 

[DougC]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> The recumbents that are truly aero tend to be clumsy to maneuver and
> heavy. The recumbents that are aero and light tend to be really clumsy
> and the position doesn't allow for easy looking around. The really aero
> (fully faired) bikes are typically clumsy and heavy, plus they get wacky
> in sidewinds.
>

The general advantage of a recumbent is not that it is more aerodynamic,
but that it is more comfortable to ride. SOME types are more aerodynamic
than a conventional upright bicycle, while others aren't. Shockingly
enough, the slower types are sold on the basis of riding comfort /alone/.

> Basically, the more aerodynamically efficient a recumbent gets, the less
> likely it will be pleasant to ride around on normal roads. It also
> becomes more fussy: without wanting to fall into the trap of defining
> the major differences as the major advantages of a DF bike, anyone with
> a modicum of skill can ride an upright bike up or down a curb, use body
> weight to mitigate the effect of road obstacles (potholes, speed bumps,
> etc.).
>

Firstly--it is true that a recumbent is not as maneuverable as an
upright--but then for typical on-road riding, a lot of the
maneuverability an upright bike allows isn't really necessary.

Secondly, recumbents are a lot more specialized than upright bikes are;
the riding position that upright bikes use is essentially the same
across most-all uses. The variations in aerodynamics between recumbent
types (and even between different models within the same type) is much
wider.

....This does mean that some recumbent types are not generally suitable
for all types of riding. A lowracer would have very poor visibility in
congested urban traffic, for example--but then, most people experienced
with recumbents would agree that this would be a poor choice of bicycle
for city riding anyway. A lowracer is built for extended cruising at
high speeds, and you'd never be able to cruise at such speeds in an
urban environment.

http://www.norcom2000.com/users/dcimper/assorted/inanities/recumbent/field_guide/bents.html


(Note to upright riders: before you brag about passing a recumbent while
riding, you /might/ want to make sure it was one of the faster types)

 

[[email protected]]

DougC wrote:
>
>
> (Note to upright riders: before you brag about passing a recumbent while
> riding, you /might/ want to make sure it was one of the faster types)

Why? When I've passed recumbent riders, I've been on my touring bike.
And among uprights, my touring bike is not "one of the faster types."

Heck, I don't even own a "racing" bike.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 17 Jan 2007 08:49:33 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>DougC wrote:
>>
>>
>> (Note to upright riders: before you brag about passing a recumbent while
>> riding, you /might/ want to make sure it was one of the faster types)
>
>Why? When I've passed recumbent riders, I've been on my touring bike.
>And among uprights, my touring bike is not "one of the faster types."
>
>Heck, I don't even own a "racing" bike.

Brag Frank,brag! It's even studlier to "blow by" a recumbent when
you're not on a racing bike. What a rush!
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Werehatrack]

On 17 Jan 2007 07:16:31 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> may have said:

>This is gonna be interesting..gonna just watch this'en.

Looks like a hit-and-run to me...and I doubt that the responses will
provoke any long threads unless we get into a really good pun cascade.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[John Everett]

On 16 Jan 2007 16:47:03 -0800, "Unreliable Narrator"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>a recent thread that turned into an argument over recumbents reminded
>me of some ideas i've had for a long time. in the interests of
>stirring debate, i'm posting.
>
>1) a recumbent forces the rider into a supine position, with the legs
>elevated and spread (to pedal). to my way of thinking, the position
>suggests feminine passivity to a lot of self-conscious
>men--particularly relative to the more "masculine" prone position that
>an upright bike places the rider in. since the majority of adult bike
>purchasers are men, and the vast majority of bike store personnel are
>men, the effect of this association steers men who would consider a
>recumbent to a regular bike.

Yes, this subconscious concern about feminine passivity is clearly
what keeps many men from becoming F-16 pilots (see:
http://www.defense-update.com/images/f-16-60-cockpit-large.jpg) or
Formula-1 and Indy car drivers.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

 

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:58:54 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> may have said:

>On 17 Jan 2007 08:49:33 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>DougC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> (Note to upright riders: before you brag about passing a recumbent while
>>> riding, you /might/ want to make sure it was one of the faster types)
>>
>>Why? When I've passed recumbent riders, I've been on my touring bike.
>>And among uprights, my touring bike is not "one of the faster types."
>>
>>Heck, I don't even own a "racing" bike.
>
>Brag Frank,brag! It's even studlier to "blow by" a recumbent when
>you're not on a racing bike. What a rush!

It's not worth bragging about when you blow past somebody who isn't
trying to go fast. IME, the typical 'bent rider is just trying to get
from point A to point B. FTM, so is the typical regular bike rider
around here.

No race is no race.



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[p.k.]

John Everett wrote:
>bike.
>
> Yes, this subconscious concern about feminine passivity is clearly
> what keeps many men from becoming F-16 pilots (see:
> http://www.defense-update.com/images/f-16-60-cockpit-large.jpg) or
> Formula-1 and Indy car drivers.


He might be on his back, but he has his hand on his joystick!

pk

 

[[email protected]]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:58:54 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>
> >
> >It's even studlier to "blow by" a recumbent when
> >you're not on a racing bike. What a rush!
>
> It's not worth bragging about when you blow past somebody who isn't
> trying to go fast. IME, the typical 'bent rider is just trying to get
> from point A to point B. FTM, so is the typical regular bike rider
> around here.
>
> No race is no race.

Some details might be interesting here. As I said, just two guys I
ride with normally use recumbents.

For a century ride a few years ago, one of the guys had installed his
full fairing. We ended up riding near each other for maybe ten miles
or so. This included one section of rough, narrow road that was losing
altitude - overall average, maybe 2% or 3% downhill - but doing it in a
series of choppy rollers. That is, short steep down, short steep up,
etc. as it made its way gradually down. The next section was a state
highway with a long, straight, consistent downhill of maybe 3 or 4
percent? (That's a guess.)

The choppy rollers went like this: he'd pull way ahead on each steep
downhill; I'd pass him again on each steep uphill. We did that
several times, until we finally got to a point where the uphills
stopped competing with the steep downhills. He then pulled away from
me.

When we hit the state highway, he was perhaps half a mile ahead of me.
At that point, I tucked down on my aero bar (yes, I have one on my
touring bike) and coasted. IIRC, I was coasting between 20 and 25 mph.
I was pretty amazed that he was not pulling away from me, from what I
could tell.

I ended up finishing the century ahead of him, but he was complaining
of leg cramps. Not that it was a race. I was just riding my ride,
while interested in the performance of his bike. FWIW, neither of us
is anything close to a racer.

Now, his full fairing is a homemade thing, and could certainly be
improved. And there's always the possibility that he had some
unrecognized mechanical problem, like (say) a dragging brake. But
overall, I didn't see any tremendous advantages to his big box.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Dane Buson]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Unreliable Narrator <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> usually the pedals are at the front of the frame,
>>> often on a tube extending forward from the frame.

>>Actually, this is one of the few attractive things about some 'bents to
>>me. The idea of having a nice toothy set of chainrings as my forward
>>aspect is appealing. Not so friendly for pedestrians admittedly, but
>>hopefully getting a 52 teeth chainring in their door might give idiot
>>drivers pause.
>
> But it's normally the driver who doesn't see you that will do you in.

True true, but I still like the *idea* of it. Probably not practical as
you mentioned.

> And of course, they're much less likely to see you on a 'bent.

Oh no! Now you've done it!

My issue is more with the fact that you can't see as well since you're
down low. One of the really nice things about riding my bike is that my
line of height is higher than it would be driving any car.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"Whenever someone thinks that they can replace SSL/SSH with something much
better that they designed this morning over coffee, their computer
speakers should generate some sort of penis-shaped sound wave and plunge
it repeatedly into their skulls until they achieve enlightenment."
--Peter Gutmann/Matt Robinson

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Some details might be interesting here. As I said, just two guys I
> ride with normally use recumbents.
>
> For a century ride a few years ago, one of the guys had installed his
> full fairing. .....
>
> I ended up finishing the century ahead of him, but he was complaining
> of leg cramps. Not that it was a race. I was just riding my ride,
> while interested in the performance of his bike. FWIW, neither of us
> is anything close to a racer.
>
> Now, his full fairing is a homemade thing, and could certainly be
> improved. And there's always the possibility that he had some
> unrecognized mechanical problem, like (say) a dragging brake. But
> overall, I didn't see any tremendous advantages to his big box.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

So, , , , -what /type/ of recumbent was it?

(see the link in my earlier post)