[email protected] wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>>'Bents work for some, most get really worked up over them both pro and
>>con...but they really answer no question or solve no problem when
>>compared to a good fitting upright...
....
> I ride one for mainly longer rides (still prefer an upright in the
> city) because it allows a much nicer view. ;o)
I have a good fitting upright. It's the most comfortable upright I've
ever owned and I like riding it.
But the question my current recumbent (a Bacchetta Strada, dual 571/650c
"high racer", no fairings of any kind) answered was:
"How can I, a fat, middle-aged guy who cannot stay in an super aero
position on an upright bike for very long, at least not while pedaling,
go significantly faster on my routes consisting of nothing but rolling
hills with less overall effort and more comfort?"
A different answer would be to drop 30 or 40 lbs off my body and train
more to improve my upper body core strength and ride my upright bike in
more aerodynamic positions a lot more than I have time for.
Buying the recumbent was a heck of a lot easier. But I'd like to try to
do it the hard way as well since I know the easy way (aka "it is about
the bike") works great, and I would enjoy the challenge of doing it the
hard way (aka "it's not about the bike").
One thing though--if I did drop the weight and improve my fitness, my
performance on the recumbent would be better still, so I'd still kinda
be back to "it is about the bike" unless I decided to ride nothing but
long, steep hills where the upright surely shines. But that isn't
practical since the places I want to go do not consist solely of long,
steep hills.
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
