"CK197" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 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.
Ask yourself some questions:
What do you want from cycling? Are you highly competitive, and want to race? Do you just want to
have fun and get fit? Do you want to ride alone, or in groups? Where will you ride? Rail trails?
Highways? Do you want a bike that can double for commuting? Intersted in long-distance touring? Do
you get a kick out of high speeds (27 MPH+), or do you like a moderate pace? Will you be riding off
road at all? Do you have any health problems, such as prostatitis, back trouble, neck trouble or
carpal tunnel that would make traditional upright bikes painful or uncomfortable?
These are important questions. Answering them will help to narrow your choices dramatically.
Nowadays, there is a bike for every purpose under the sun. From 20" folding bikes, to tandem road
bikes, to full-suspension MTB's to land-speed-record-class fully-faired recumbents that can hit
50MPH+. (The current record is 80 MPH on a recumbent.)
If you're just getting started, and exercise is your primary goal, and you aren't competitive (ie:
don't care about racing), then a hybrid bike might be a good choice. Personally, I would prefer one
of the flat-handlebar road bikes, like the Bianchi Strada, because it offers a more stretched-out
position than a hybrid.
Personally, I like recumbents, too. My little RANS Rocket is a fantastic bike. On a recumbent, you
are looking up at the sky, instead of down at the ground. It really makes a difference. You can
sometimes get a "magic carpet ride" feeling from riding a recumbent.
Recumbents can be *very* fast, even without strange-looking fairings attached. I hit 31mph on level
ground (for a short sprint) while I was dropping a roadie on an upright bike. I've owned an M5 Low
Racer, which holds 6 world speed and distance records. It was a handful to ride; but man, what a
machine! It was breathtakingly fast; but my "engine" couldn't do it justice. My RANS Rocket is much
more what I needed, and is very versatile, light, inexpensive ($550 used) and pretty fast.
For maximum versatility, I recommend buying a bike with mount points (eyelets) for a rear cargo rack
and/or fenders. Some road bikes have this feature, and it elevates them to a level of versatility
that more expensive bikes can't match.
Though the lightness of a bike seems to be touted as directly proportional to speed, this simply
isn't true. The M5 Low Racer must have weighed 45 lbs; but it is one of the fastest production bikes
on Earth. Don't let a salesperson talk you into spending 2x or 3x more to drop 4 lbs off the bike.
It just doesn't matter. As long as you're in a bike shop, and not at WalMart, you can't make a
mistake. Any of the bikes will work well for a very long time. I prefer lighter bikes, as do most
people, and I'm willing to spend the money for high-end parts. You don't have to do that.
Whatever you do, make sure that the bike you buy fits you, and that you can get it serviced easily.
Make sure that it is what you like. Don't listen to anybody else's criteria but your own. Ride
enough bikes to be able to decide. When you find the one that you fall in love with, buy it. Don't
let price determine your final choice. The right bike will be a joy to ride for a very long time.
That is the most important part.
Best of luck on your search,
Barry Sanders
Next thing I knew, the sciatica was cured.
