Chalo said:It was only my experience with riding 'bents that demonstrated to me
how much they don't measure up to regular bikes. And I may have tried
a lousy couple of 'bents (Infinity LWB and BikeE), but that doesn't
fully account for my impression.
I like recumbents, but I hated the BikeE and how it handled! I tried
it and some other bikes like it a few times and I could never "get"
it.
I never rode an Infinity, but I can see how someone wouldn't like the
USS steering system it had.
So I can see how someone whose primary experiences with recumbents
were with these two particular bikes would be turned off. I can't
comment on those other effed up bikes you mentioned and how badly they
may have ridden.
....
Quoted message said:I think the bewildering array of 'bents available (in spite of their
tiny number) illustrates what I'm saying about them-- lots of folks
keep applying their minds to solving the problem, but nobody has yet
come up with a design that's good enough to warrant adopting the way
that safety bikes were so quickly adopted.
Some will find it blasphemous, but I think The Design That's Good
Enough (tm) exists now. It is the "high racer stick bike". It makes
for a very high performance bike without fairings, as well as a fat
tired urban commuter or trail bike.
Bike makers who in the past that have derided that type of frame are
now making similar bikes (see the new RANS F5).
It works, and it works well--much better (for me anyway) than any of
the recumbent bikes I've tried in the past. I have no further desire
to try some other type of recumbent bike. This one is it.
Please give it one more chance.
Having said all that, it has some downsides that are difficult to
overcome:
- adapting to shorter riders, below maybe 5' 8" or so, (requiring
smaller wheels, but then that can be said of safety bikes too)
- inadequate air flow across your back during warm weather riding
- difficult to view cross traffic from one side at intersections that
are not designed properly