Recumbent vs. Traditional

[Curtis L. Russe]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... ...
> Why do you think a recumbent makes your feet less sore? The force to move
the
> bike is the same (actually more climbing, since bents are typically
heavier),
> and all the force is transmitted through the feet on both bikes. Was it a circulation problem?
>

Doubt it is circulation, because the I believe the numb toes that I DO get on a recumbent to be
something to do with circulation.

It MAY be because I went to SPuDs on all my recumbents, which weren't available the first time I
tried, with liberal rotation. The strap systems on shoes are better now as well. Beyond that, its
all guessing.

I did try Looks with limited rotation, but they didn't help. It also may be that I started to back
off spinning back then in anyway consistently and leaned on the pedals 'at rest' too much, rather
than keeping pressure off by spinning - and you don't lean into a pedal on a recumbent when your
feet are at rest. (Problem is, I focused on that for several rides and it didn't seem to help...)

So at the end of the day, I had dumped all the quill pedals as I was guessing that the curl was the
problem - no change other than it cost me a couple of hundred in additional Campi flat track pedals
when that was real money. Tried pretty much all the available good or better toe clips and straps,
including single and double straps, including a stupid ploy where I moved the strap fastener inside
and immediately caught it in the chain and ring. This DID prevent foot pain on that ride, but there
was pain in other places. Did get a cool chain ring scar that lasted a couple of years.

Changed seat positions within ranges and tried a fast back frame for a while (probably the most
radical angle change to be bought back then). Also tried different shoelace wrap methods (any old
farts remember all the ways to lace a cycling shoe? - I knew four and tried all four) and some very
early strap shoes. Probably tried a few other things I can't think of (except oval rings - one try
on a shop bike and I wasn't willing to waste the money).

And somewhere around 45 - 55 miles into a ride, one or the other, or both, of the toe box areas
started to feel like it was on fire. Around 60-65 miles I'd be trying to walk it off. Problem was,
it took more than a few minutes or it restarted almost immediately. Definitely swelling, but have no
idea if more than when there was no pain (it wasn't an issue).

Tried my first recumbent and now I can ride almost literally all day (make it daylight hours and it
is literally true) and feel no pain - just a bit of numbness that walks off in a minute and stays
away for hours. I can live with that.

--
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Mark Lee]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > OTOH, the main reason that I stopped riding a diamond frame over 50
miles or
> > so at a time is a suddenly occurring problem of a 'hot box' on both feet from pressure. While I
> > tried quite a few things to alleviate the problem (starting with Campi quills and track pedals
> > and ending with Looks, with
a
> > lot of different fit advice from relative experts along the way), the
first
> > time I could do pain-free centuries again was when I bought the Vision,
so
> > the trade from foot-pain to foot-numbness was a reasonable one. Usually
goes
> > away by walking about briefly, usually once a ride when 75-100 miles.
>
> Why do you think a recumbent makes your feet less sore? The force to move
the
> bike is the same (actually more climbing, since bents are typically
heavier),
> and all the force is transmitted through the feet on both bikes. Was it a circulation problem?
>
Could be a back problem. Mark Lee

 

[Risto Varanka]

CK197 <[email protected]> wrote:
: Hello, I'm thinking of getting into cycling to alleviate the boredom I get from traditional forms
: of exercise. Since cycling seems to be more fun,

I thought cycling is one of the traditional forms of exercise =)

: I would like to know if there are any websites that highlight the differences between recumbent
: and traditional bikes, the pros and cons, what type to buy, etc. Any help would be appreciated.

You can start somewhere but nobody knows where you'll end up... Maybe you could buy a 2nd hand
hybrid or touring bike from a few years back, ride it and do research on the meanwhile.

Bents seem to offer greater variety than conventional bikes, especially if you take that to mean
only diamond frames. You can have 2, 3 or 4 wheels (or even more), different seat height and angle,
bottom bracket position, some kind of fairing... Consider your requirements and budget carefully.

The best way is to ride everything you can Don't be daunted by learning curves - if you are
really green to cycling, you'll experience them both with uprights and bents. However, bent trikes
are very easy to ride.

If we all were riding bents, somebody would have to invent uprights, and then there would be great
discussions all over the Usenet about their supposedly better climbing abilities, advantages in city
traffic and so on, and some would wonder why on earth somebody would like to ride their bike
off-road, whether uprights are safe at all, and why the heck they cost so much...

To me many bent sites seem fairly objective, steer clear of the hype :^) For one thing, many fit
people are quite comfortable on their good, well-fitting upright bikes. Still, bent seats can let
you experience the comfort in a more positive and pronounced way.

There doesn't seem to be many detailed analyses on bents vs. uprights by people who have
considerable experience with both, but prefer mostly uprights. :-/

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Peter Cole]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There doesn't seem to be many detailed analyses on bents vs. uprights by people who have
> considerable experience with both, but prefer mostly uprights. :-/

Sandiway Fong did quite an extensive write up on his experiments with bents a couple of years ago,
it's probably still on his site. His bottom line was that even high performance bents, were slower
than DF, even after he trained a bit with them. I've ridden with bents many times on long distance
rides, they don't seem to be anything special in the speed department. I think they're just easier
to put a fairing on. Given all the relative drawbacks and advantages, I don't think I'd bother with
one unless I had a back problem. One guy in our club rode for several weeks on a bent he bought
after breaking his collarbone. As soon as it was healed, he switched back, he tells me he doesn't
ride the bent at all any more.

 

[Jchase]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
> Group rides aren't the equivalent of pace lines. Tandems, recumbents and recumbent tandems work
> perfectly well together in the typical social bike ride group.

The weather here in Ohio just got fit for cycling, and I saw my first group cruising through my
neighborhood today- three traditionals and one recumbant.

 

[Mark Lee]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> (a lot of discussion completely from the point of view of a pace-line
rider)
>
> You completely missed the point. I've ridden pace lines going back to 1970 when I could to a 25
> mph pace line with relative ease. Has nothing to do with my original reply, other than vaguely
> about my comment that most
people
> don't ride pacelines and many of those that do, do it poorly.

Most people don't ride bikes - e.g. I adjusted a bike for the guy across the road who'd ridden 5½ mi
on his 2 yr old bicycle. I do know an old guy
(mid/late 60's) who trains riding 100 yards off the back of slower groups because he doesn't trust
his bunch skills. In the bunch, I watch for new faces and am wary of old faces with poor safety
records... no matter whose fault - they're usually worthy of some extra space.

> Group rides aren't the equivalent of pace lines. Tandems, recumbents and recumbent tandems work
> perfectly well together in the typical social bike ride group.

Yes, I have seen a recumbent sitting off the back (or front) of very small (3-5 cycles) slow loose
groups maybe twice or thrice. I've ridden a tandem in the top ten places of a 3000 person ride - it
was much harder than a single because of the bunch surging.

> If you want to show off your paceline expertise, slide a bit south to rbr. Be better prepared,
> though...

Bit difficult to show it off using plain text - and there isn't much to show. I leave a little more
room than many - usually a wheel to ½ a bikelength in variable terrain at moderate speeds to about
28mph. In flat,open terrain or over 30mph, I sit closer. I like to be able to see some road because
debris/pothole calls can be unreliable so I usually sit slightly offset... occasionally have to
bunnyhop. I haven't had a fall in over 20 yrs although I have had to avoid a few where I was next
wheel! Riding in large, fast groups takes some practice but my 13 yr old son does it successfully
and has managed 36mph in a flat burn coming out of the bunch (on limited gears)- he's also had to
dodge at least one multi-rider pile-up. There are a lot more fast groups ("pacelines?") round here
than social bike ride groups. Once or twice a year there are charity rides involving thousands of
"social" riders. That's when you're most likely to see tandems, recumbents, kickbikes, unicycles and
scooters. They are scary (but fun) events with some riders so "unco" (uncoordinated) that they veer
from gutter to gutter on 2 lane roads, some so unfit or inexperienced they walk up the easiest hills
and lots that are just downright unpredictable and dangerous at any speed. I used to be in a club 25
yrs ago for general cyclists - got sick of just coasting with the brakes on while people complained
about the hills or speed... gave me tired hands and a sore ****. Mark Lee

 

[Terry Morse]

Jon Isaacs wrote:

> Regarding hill climbing, I have never heard even the most radial recumbent enthusiasts claim a
> recumbent was better at climbing than a diamond frame. Most seem to be comfortable with the idea
> that the poorer climbing performance is made up for by the comfort.

Do recumbents make climbing difficult, or are recumbent riders just crummy at climbing? I don't
know, but I have yet to see a recumbent rider who doesn't suck in the hills.

I was on a fast group ride last weekend. One guy on a fully faired recumbent went off the front and
was almost out of sight in a few minutes. Until we go to a moderate hill of about 1200 ft., where we
ate him up in no time.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be many detailed analyses on bents vs. uprights by people who have
> > considerable experience with both, but prefer mostly uprights. :-/
>
> Sandiway Fong did quite an extensive write up on his experiments with bents a couple of years ago,
> it's probably still on his site. His bottom line was that even high performance bents, were slower
> than DF, even after he trained a bit with them. I've ridden with bents many times on long distance
> rides, they don't seem to be anything special in the speed department. I think they're just easier
> to put a fairing on. Given all the relative drawbacks and advantages, I don't think I'd bother
> with one unless I had a back problem. One guy in our club rode for several weeks on a bent he
> bought after breaking his collarbone. As soon as it was healed, he switched back, he tells me he
> doesn't ride the bent at all any more.

I've known quite a few guys who tried bents - and by "tried" I mean spent fairly serious money and
time acquiring one.

Typically, these were guys who rode conventional frames for years, then as they got older, tried the
bents on the promise of more comfort or speed. In almost all cases, they rode the bents
enthusiastically for a couple years, then went back to their DFs except for "special occasions."
They didn't really have good explanations for giving up the bents. The consensus seemed to be that
the bent was nice, it was comfortable - but they just preferred an upright.

One exception is a guy now in his 70s who has physical problems riding a
DF. He's toured very, very extensively in the past on his DF, but now he pretty much just rides the
bent on bike paths.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Ckaudio1]

I would have to say that I am much faster on my Optima Baron lowracer. I haven't found a roadie yet
around here that I haven't been able to outrun. Most of the time they are in a 24 mph paceline or by
themselves eeking out a miserable 18-19 mph pace. I usually speed by them in the 27 mph range. I now
pass them up the hills also. Training on a Tacx I-magic all winter has helped though. It's all about
getting used to the bike. I'm a lot faster on it this spring even than at my fastest point last
summer. Am up to 316 watt output for the 10 k time trial distance now which will translates to 29mph
average speed. I don't know too many roadies unless they are professionals and ride 100's upon 100's
of miles per week that do that kind of speed at that wattage. I drive my bike aggressively most of
the time. Its no different than being in a car and weaving in and out of traffic on the expressway.
Use your mirrors. You guys don't normally have to turn your head all the way around to see who is
coming up behind you in a car do you? Well you don't have to on a recumbent either. Get some helmet
mirrors. A lowracer is a pretty fast platform. But in general, it is all about the engine pushing
it.

http://groups.msn.com/BicyclingForumPicPost/trainingsetuppics.msnw
>
> Sandiway Fong did quite an extensive write up on his experiments with bents a couple of years ago,
> it's probably still on his site. His bottom line was that even high performance bents, were slower
> than DF, even after he trained a bit with them. I've ridden with bents many times on long distance
> rides, they don't seem to be anything special in the speed department. I think they're just easier
> to put a fairing on. Given all the relative drawbacks and advantages, I don't think I'd bother
> with one unless I had a back problem. One guy in our club rode for several weeks on a bent he
> bought after breaking his collarbone. As soon as it was healed, he switched back, he tells me he
> doesn't ride the bent at all any more.

 

[Scott]

> Sandiway Fong did quite an extensive write up on his experiments with bents a couple of years ago,
> it's probably still on his site. His bottom line was that even high performance bents, were slower
> than DF, even after he trained a bit with them. I've ridden with bents many times on long distance
> rides, they don't seem to be anything special in the speed department. I think they're just easier
> to put a fairing on. Given all the relative drawbacks and advantages, I don't think I'd bother
> with one unless I had a back problem. One guy in our club rode for several weeks on a bent he
> bought after breaking his collarbone. As soon as it was healed, he switched back, he tells me he
> doesn't ride the bent at all any more.

Most honest folks will say that bents are slower climbing long hills--though I've never had the
pleasure of trying out a 20lb. bent! However, a fairing and body sock (lycra shell attached to
fairing and stretched over body of bike/rider) can make bents incredibly fast--like take riders of
equal strengths, and the DF'er will be dropped like a rock--faired/socked bikes are that good. I've
been reading some accounts of riders on tours doing INCREDIBLE mileage--stuff that would leave most
DF's in crying misery.

Soooooo...there's lots to think about. It's nice to have choices. No one kind of bike is absolutely
better in all circumstances. Each type has advantages and disadvantages. Many people are turning to
recumbents, and they're one of the few growing segments of the biking market. Certainly worth a
look. As I said in an earlier post, I've no special injury, but I wouldn't be a serious cyclist if
not for recumbents. The things are a blast!

Happy Riding!

Scott

 

[Jay]

in article [email protected], Terry Morse at [email protected] wrote on
3/27/03 10:26 PM:

> Jon Isaacs wrote:
>
>> Regarding hill climbing, I have never heard even the most radial recumbent enthusiasts claim a
>> recumbent was better at climbing than a diamond frame. Most seem to be comfortable with the idea
>> that the poorer climbing performance is made up for by the comfort.
>
> Do recumbents make climbing difficult, or are recumbent riders just crummy at climbing? I don't
> know, but I have yet to see a recumbent rider who doesn't suck in the hills.
>
> I was on a fast group ride last weekend. One guy on a fully faired recumbent went off the front
> and was almost out of sight in a few minutes. Until we go to a moderate hill of about 1200 ft.,
> where we ate him up in no time.

Because you can't stand on the pedals or use body english, most recumbents are slower approaching
the hills. They have approximately 30% less wind resistance than traditional bikes and that figure
increases with a fairing, or better yet a tailbox or combination. The current land speed record is
held by a recumbent. They are considered to be an unfair design advantage and are not permitted in
many racing competitions.

I ride recumbents for comfort, rather than speed.

I have done amateur rolldown and other tests and for myself I go about 40-60% faster on a recumbent
than other traditional bikes I have tried.

Ask recumbent people about their experiences.(newsgroups, email, real life meets, bike stores, etc)

My best advice- define your needs/ learn what you want (travel, commuter, touring, racing,
expeditions, transportation, etc) from any bike or trike ( traditional or recumbent) and try as many
different ones as you can for as long as you can.

When you get down to it- you want your needs and your body to determine your purchase-
whatever it is.

Feel free to email me with questions.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Typically, these were guys who rode conventional frames for years, then as they got older, tried
> the bents on the promise of more comfort or speed. In almost all cases, they rode the bents
> enthusiastically for a couple years, then went back to their DFs except for "special occasions."
> They didn't really have good explanations for giving up the bents. The consensus seemed to be that
> the bent was nice, it was comfortable - but they just preferred an upright.

A friend of mine was into RX 7s, which are fairly recumbent in terms of seating. As I got older, I
found it increasingly difficult to get into and out of his car without making that "nnnngghh"
grunt that middle-aged men sometimes make when bending over. It's much easier for me to get on a
(DF) bike.

My friend got older, too. Now he's into Camaros.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Jay]

in article [email protected], Tom Keats at [email protected] wrote on
3/28/03 4:45 AM:

> In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Typically, these were guys who rode conventional frames for years, then as they got older, tried
>> the bents on the promise of more comfort or speed. In almost all cases, they rode the bents
>> enthusiastically for a couple years, then went back to their DFs except for "special occasions."
>> They didn't really have good explanations for giving up the bents. The consensus seemed to be
>> that the bent was nice, it was comfortable - but they just preferred an upright.
>
> A friend of mine was into RX 7s, which are fairly recumbent in terms of seating. As I got older, I
> found it increasingly difficult to get into and out of his car without making that "nnnngghh"
> grunt that middle-aged men sometimes make when bending over. It's much easier for me to get on a
> (DF) bike.
>
> My friend got older, too. Now he's into Camaros.

Out of several hundred recumbent riders I have met, about 2-3 have gone back to diamond frames. Most
of the other people are now accumulating more than one bent.

There were so many advantages to riding recumbents that I put in an adapter to get up/down in the
lowest trike. I can ride comfortably for about 10 hours on a properly fitted bent compared to about
10minutes on a diamond frame.

Are recumbents better than diamond frame? No- more like "Isn't it great to have a range of
possibilities to suit your needs". There are so many factors that I emphasise again that the rider
needs to figure out his/her needs and *experience* each style of bike.

I still say that the main thing is the original poster's OWN feel as he tries many options for
extended riding.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Doubt it is circulation, because the I believe the numb toes that I DO get on a recumbent to be
> something to do with circulation.
>

> And somewhere around 45 - 55 miles into a ride, one or the other, or both, of the toe box areas
> started to feel like it was on fire.

> Definitely swelling, but have no idea if more than when there was no pain (it wasn't an issue).
>
> Tried my first recumbent and now I can ride almost literally all day (make it daylight hours and
> it is literally true) and feel no pain

Sounds like the pain may have been related to swelling. I have experienced such pain on long rides
from shoes that became too tight with foot swelling. Elevating your legs will improve circulation to
the feet. It can't be a simple pressure thing, since the forces are the same with an upright.

 

[Jay]

in article [email protected], Jon Isaacs at [email protected] wrote on
3/28/03 5:38 AM:

>> Do recumbents make climbing difficult, or are recumbent riders just crummy at climbing? I don't
>> know, but I have yet to see a recumbent rider who doesn't suck in the hills.
>>
>> I was on a fast group ride last weekend. One guy on a fully faired recumbent went off the front
>> and was almost out of sight in a few minutes. Until we go to a moderate hill of about 1200 ft.,
>> where we ate him up in no time.
>> --
>
> I am sure that there are recumbent riders who can fly by me on a real hill, but I have not met
> one. I don't think recumbents make hills difficult, rather they just make them somewhat slower.
> One fellow I used to ride with bought a recumbent. On a diamond frame he and I were about equal
> climbers. Once on a recumbent, he was much slower even after he had been riding it for a couple of
> years on a daily basis.
>
> What I see is that recumbent riders seem to need to use very low gears and spin up hills. I see
> them in the small ring of a triple spinning away on a hill that I just push through using a 80 or
> 90 inch gear.
>
> My thinking is that the recumbent position is more efficient aerodynamically but not mechanically.
> It may have something to do with sitting on the muscles one is pedalling with, or possibly the low
> center of gravity and/or long wheel base making slow speed handling and pushing bigger gears more
> difficult. It may have to do with inability to change positions in a significant way so as to
> recruit other muscle groups.
>
> Maybe someone who rides a recumbent can suggest the reasons this might be.
>
> Jon Isaacs

You are right. Most recumbent riders spin up hills rather than mash on the pedals and due to the
positioning can't use body english to transfer power through the pedals. In many cases this
translates as a slower accession in the hills. I recognise this drawback in recumbents, and will
admit that there are a few other possible drawbacks to recumbents. What I have found was that those
types of hills compromise about 1-2% of my riding in the areas I have cycled in (Ontario, Canada,
northern Florida, Las Vegas, Nevada, Southern Australia) There has been so many overwhelming
advantages that it has literally changed my life.

I have spoken with kinesiology professors at the local university about my recumbents ( at their
request). They say that a recumbent is also a better mechanically due to how the body is positioned
and how the muscles are utilised against the pedals (spinning is better for the human body than
mashing)- except when hill climbing, due to the reasons above.

Despite my enthusiasm- I add that any particular recumbent or even recumbents as a class of bikes
may NOT suit any one person's needs.

It is great to accumulate information- but I say- access your needs and then RIDE RIDE RIDE. Your
riding needs and your own body can tell you which bike is best for you.

 

[Peter Cole]

"ckaudio1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I would have to say that I am much faster on my Optima Baron lowracer. I haven't found a roadie
> yet around here that I haven't been able to outrun. \ I now pass them up the hills also.

Even the most enthusiastic bent riders all seem to admit that bents can't climb as well as DF's.
Your claims are suspicious.

 

[Curtis L. Russe]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%6Xga.239000$F1.44845@sccrnsc04... ...
> Sounds like the pain may have been related to swelling. I have experienced such pain on long rides
> from shoes that became too tight with foot
swelling.
> Elevating your legs will improve circulation to the feet. It can't be a
simple
> pressure thing, since the forces are the same with an upright.
>
Yes, except for the leaning on the pedal thing (putting body weight on the low pedal and leaning
while not spinning), which may have something to do with it, but as far as I could determine, didn't
- but not exactly scientifically. Yes, there is a difference in swelling, although there is some
swelling in both cases (one interesting recumbent thing is that some with under-seat-steering have
swelling in the hands and wrists, to the point that removing rings right after riding won't work.)
That said, I certainly tried loosening the shoes and straps and anything else that came to mind and
it didn't give relief. The problem was moderately heat related, although I otherwise don't have any
heat issues - having started my 'serious' bike riding in Texas and Kansas...

Anyway, the problem is gone and I'm too old to worry about causes anymore - I'm increasingly
mollified by results and live with them. Maybe 20 years of network support is wearing me down...

--
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

--
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russe]

"Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... ...
>
> I am sure that there are recumbent riders who can fly by me on a real
hill, but
> I have not met one. I don't think recumbents make hills difficult, rather
they
> just make them somewhat slower. One fellow I used to ride with bought a recumbent. On a diamond
> frame he and I were about equal climbers. Once
on a
> recumbent, he was much slower even after he had been riding it for a
couple of
> years on a daily basis.
>
> What I see is that recumbent riders seem to need to use very low gears and
spin
> up hills. I see them in the small ring of a triple spinning away on a
hill
> that I just push through using a 80 or 90 inch gear.

I'm not sure that it is an overall mechanical inefficiency, but that in the case of climbing it is a
combination of approach and, at that point, an inefficiency. The approach issue is that you don't
blow out your knees to try to get another mph out of a steep climb. So at that point, a reasonable
recumbent rider is going to maximize their overall ride by spinning as best they can uphill and pick
it up on the downhill and later.

I find that I climb about a mph slower at the beginning, if returning to riding, on the Vision
recumbent compared to the Trek 1200. In a month or so I climb equally well, but that's because I
ride the Vision exclusively (practically). I think the Trek always has a mph advantage and more on
really steep grades, all thing being equal. You simply can't pull the straps tight and stand and
climb (or fall over trying) on the Vision.

OTOH, the Vision is fully as fast on rolling hills and usually faster for me at the end of the day
unless the ride is packed with steep hills. (OTOOH, I've averaged 14 mph on a very hilly century,
put together by a USCF rider that liked to climb, so it isn't as if the thing is total lead - and I
did pass a few diamond frame riders that were off their bike on the uphills) And since I can ride
for about another hour or so in comfort on the Vision, for me the Vision is a good 20 miles better
or more of riding.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> However, a fairing and body sock (lycra shell attached to fairing and stretched over body of
> bike/rider) can make bents incredibly fast--like take riders of equal strengths, and the DF'er
> will be dropped like a rock--faired/socked bikes are that good.

Bents are easier to put fairings on, and fairings can make any bike a lot faster on the flats, but
fairings aren't particularly practical. You don't see too many bents, even in a pretty geeky
community like Boston/Cambridge, where I live. Nor do they show up very often on the ultra-cycling
organized rides that I do. I've never seen a faired bent on the road, so I think claims about faired
bents, or bicycles in general, are pretty academic.

 

[Curtis L. Russe]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hJLga.235011$3D1.76557@sccrnsc01...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be many detailed analyses on bents vs. uprights by people who have
> > considerable experience with both, but prefer mostly uprights. :-/
>
> Sandiway Fong did quite an extensive write up on his experiments with
bents a
> couple of years ago, it's probably still on his site. His bottom line was
that
> even high performance bents, were slower than DF, even after he trained a
bit
> with them. I've ridden with bents many times on long distance rides, they don't seem to be
> anything special in the speed department. I think they're just easier to put a fairing on. Given
> all the relative drawbacks and advantages, I don't think I'd bother with one unless I had a back
> problem.
One
> guy in our club rode for several weeks on a bent he bought after breaking
his
> collarbone. As soon as it was healed, he switched back, he tells me he
doesn't
> ride the bent at all any more.
>
For a few years there were several low-racers on the Seagull Century that outran everything but the
USCF pacelines and a few A-type tandem teams. No illusion at all. OTOH, my wife and I were on a
Vision tandem and we basically were outrunning the kids on mountain bikes and that was by accident
(we really lean more to putting our BOB trailer on the back with a 5-gallon tub of lemonade and go
for the slowest century of the day some year. Only speed goal - get to any ice cream before they run
out.) We can go faster, but that wasn't the point...

I also did the final time point for a USCF/open time trial a couple of years ago, and one of three
fastest bikes was a recumbent - except for really blowing the turn around on really skinny tires (as
in not keeping the tires on the ground). The two that were faster on the road were among the fastest
District 20/42 time triallers.

--
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

--
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...