Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> My experience is the main excuses for not riding much come down to
> issues of confidence, skill (for lack of a better word; we're talking
> clumsy or unpracticed riders), or perceived safety. None of these
> non-riders (or not-much riders) generally spend enough time on any bike
> for comfort to be a factor.
>
> Of the ones who spend enough time on a bike to actually get
> uncomfortable, I know of one that stopped because of comfort. He had
> substantial mid-life spinal disc degeneration, and switched to running,
> and is the guy I talked about who might get a 'bent. LWB, most likely.
> I've pointed him at 'bents that I've come across.
>
To a certain extend what you observe depends on where you're located.
And you really need to look at what sells on the LOW end of the market,
because these are the toughest customers, most intolerant of
inconvenience. People who will pay $3000 for a road bike have already
committed themselves to riding, and have resolved themselves to the fact
that it's painful--either as a result of needing a competition-legal
bike, or (much more often) because they aren't aware of anything
drastically better.
At the low end of the US market there are four types of bikes commonly
available: road bikes, MTB's, hybrids and comfort bikes. Low-end road
bikes and MTBs are patterned directly after their upper-end racing
versions. Hybrids and comfort bikes are not. Hybrids were invented for
people who liked the MTB riding position better than road bikes, but who
didn't need the heavy-duty construction. Comfort bikes were patterned
after hybrids, but made changes such as riser handlebars and bigger and
lower seats.
Who drove the market in hybrids and comfort bikes? People who won't ride
because it is physically uncomfortable.
> There are plenty of mitigations for comfort issues with saddle pain and
> numb hands. Getting the right saddle is important (once I found a cheap
> one that fit me well, I gathered up every one I could find), but not
> hard. I do multi-hour rides with ease.
>
Why are "mitigations" even necessary? Because of a poor design.
If you had bought a recumbent bike, it would likely only have one seat
available, that one would work just fine for you and the vast majority
of the rest of humanity, and you still wouldn't need to wear padded
shorts or padded gloves to ride it. I don't even /own/ any padded shorts
or gloves anymore.
I also question how "painless" [any upright rider] thinks their ride is,
when they haven't tried anything better. There is an enormous difference
in comfort between recumbents and uprights and the longer the ride is,
the more dramatic that difference becomes.
> I have no firsthand experience, but I suspect many 'bent riders go
> through a similar process of finding a saddle that is just right.
>
No, not really. Most recumbents are only ever available with one type of
seat, often that seat cannot be changed (with many trikes it's even
integral with the frame) and there's only about four or five different
types total. People may have their preferences but it's very rare to see
someone (with no health conditions such as a back injury) claim that a
certain seat is practically unusable.
> As for numb hands, it's a matter of bar position mostly:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/handsup.html
>
> Sheldon's general article on cycling pain covers most of the details:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/pain.html
>
I don't know how much experience Sheldon has with recumbents. As far as
I've heard he was only driven to one due to declining health. Many of
the issues on his "page of pain" pretty much don't occur on a recumbent
at all and when they do occur, they are often far less severe than what
you'd experience on an upright bike.
This is a common perception however, that recumbents are only for people
who cannot tolerate an upright bike. I have had both kinds of bicycles,
and I've found that I enjoy riding a lot more when it hurts less.
> I think the great mass of people who avoid cycling due to actual comfort
> issues are few. Certainly, I know people who think dual-suspension (for
> substantially paved riding) is the route to cycling nirvana, but as far
> as I can tell, most of those riders are choosing their first bicycle as
> a teen or adult, and few do so with the counsel of an experienced
> cyclist.
>
Funny you should mention dual-suspension; the last upright bike I kept
was a Pro-Flex 856 MTB with slicks for street riding.
A lot of "experienced cyclists" don't know as much as they think they
do. Most bike shops don't have recumbents at all, and they'd rather sell
a person a dozen different seats than tell them where to go to get a
bicycle that doesn't hurt to ride.
> How to say this diplomatically? The HPVs out there competing for HPV
> speed records seem to me like an interesting pursuit of technology and
> sport. But they're as specialized as the Thrust SSC.
>
The bicycles you are talking about are called "faired streamliners". To
allow them against conventional unfaired bicycles certainly wouldn't be
much of a contest--but many recumbents have lower drag, even without the
use of fairings. It would be enough for UCI to change the rules to say
"any vehicle propelled by human power, and without devices for
aerodynamic benefit alone". Team Bachetta seems to do pretty well
without fairings.
~
]
