Gareth Crawshaw wrote:
> I'm not sure about the recumbents...
That is, of course, one of the problems with uptake ("if they're so great, how come hardly anyone
rides them" is a somewhat circular argument...). You either get something you know will work well,
or risk something that even though it might be better is rather an unknown. I took the risk (very
glad I did) but I completely understand why people prefer a more traditional solution.
> the roads around can be quite twisty - a lot of blind bends - hilly, and quite narrow.
Then you want a bike that handles very well. 'Bents have a lower centre of gravity so a well
designed one for speed with the weight centred between the wheels can be hurled into tighter corners
than an upright and come out shining IME. Also the case that the rider position lower down means
that the brakes can be far more effective.
> As I said in an earlier post, traffic is something that concerns me around here: because the
> number of cars is low, people drive extremely quickly and I have seen many close calls with
> people bumping up embankments (there are no pavements or curbs...) just to get past each other in
> places... So... I'm not sure about the safety aspect of a recumbent on the roads around me -
> although that could be just my lack of knowledge in these things?
For blind bends it doesn't make any difference: if you're round the other side then you can't be
seen no matter what you're on. As pointed out above, braking on a 'bent tends to be better at high
speed because there's no tendency to sail over the bars. Visibility of a 'bent is one of the most
frequently quoted "I wouldn't ride that because" I hear but to an extent the design will affect that
(mine is car-seat height for the rider) and even the low ones, though they're not best in traffic,
are far from invisible on the open road. I find I get given *more* space on a 'bent, probably
because of the "wtf" factor. None of the 'bent riders here seem to have problems with not being seen
is the bottom line.
> Plus... cycling in the evenings and mornings, especially during the winter, a third of my rides
> this last year have been in the dark (there is no lighting up the country roads!)... Just a
> thought. Would those considerations have any impact on your thoughts about a recument?
None at all. They'll take lights the same as anything else, and the back of the seat is a nice large
area to cover in reflectives so you're actually easier to see from behind at night. Mine has a SON
hub dynamo which is good enough for unlit lanes at night (you need to use the brakes rather more on
twisty descents, but I could supplement it with battery lights if that was an issue for me) and no
need for batteries or worrying about them going out.
Thing to do is give them a try. D-Tek in Cambridge, Bikefix and London Recumbents in London,
FutureCycles in Surrey and Kinetics in Glasgow are the Usual Suspects for 'bent demonstrators. Can
be a bit wobbly on the first few goes, but once you've played a bit they're fine. Make a day of it,
starting on something like an HPV Spirit, and work your way towards the faster stuff. Even if you
don't end up getting one, you'll have a fun day playing on cool toys ;-)
Enjoy! Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/