Unhappy bentriders ?

[Jacques]

I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm not sure
I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of
the bent thing.

As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I will find them on
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Thanks for the advice

Jacques

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm not
> sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the
> advantages of the bent thing.
>
> As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I will find them on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?
>
> Thanks for the advice

I've never ridden one, but one thing which I think might bother me a bit is the lower height-of-eye,
making it more difficult to see over or through other vehicles. I've found that if a vehicle is too
tall for me to see over on my DF bike, I can usually see through its windows, so I'm not completely
blocked. I doubt most bents would be high enough to do that.

Whether that would be enough to turn me off of a 'bent completely, I wouldn't know without
trying it.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[George]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in news[email protected]:
> Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and stopped using it ? If
> so, why ?

I have a recumbent that I use only occassionally. I use my upright road bike most of the time. Some
reasons, in no particular order, why I don't like the recumbent:

1. Low seat position makes you less visible in heavy traffic
2. You can't turn around to look at traffic behind you. Most recumbent riders rely heavily on
mirrors (often multiple mirrors), but looking back on an upright bike gives you a much better
view. This is a big problem when you're trying to merge/turn left through multiple lanes of high
speed traffic.
3. Acceleration is poor. This can be a big problem when you're trying to cross a busy street at
a 2-way stop (you have a stop sign and cross traffic doesn't). This is especially a problem
on uphills.
4. The longer wheelbase makes recumbents difficult to maneuver through the various types of
barriers on bike paths. I often have to pick the bike up and carry it over the barriers.
5. Fixed seating position and long wheelbase make recumbents more difficult to maneuver in traffic.
You can't use "body english" to make quick turns.
6. The acceleration profile of a recumbent is different from upright bikes. On group rides, I
always get dropped at stoplights and hills and have to work hard to catch up. You can't really
draft an upright bike either.
7. Any claims that recumbents are *always* faster than upright bikes is BS. Recumbents are faster
when fully faired, but fully faired upright bikes are really fast, too. Unfaired recumbents are
no faster than unfaired upright bikes at recreational speeds. You may gain an aero advantage at
30mph, but I don't hit that very often.

Recumbents are great if you're going on long rides on low traffic rural roads. The big seat is
really comfortable on century rides. If you ride in a big city or in the suburbs during rush hour,
recumbents can be pretty exciting.

That's just my personal experience. I'm sure others have different experiences.

 

[Ralph Bean]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> ...Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and stopped using it ? If
> so, why ?
>
> Jacques

Jacques -

I ride a recumbent and like it, but recognize that there is too much pro-recumbent hype in the
recumbent news groups.

Here are some drawbacks that I have noticed, but weren't noted by Mr. Kerber or George.

+ Weight. Recumbents weigh more than an upright bicycle of equivalent cost or quality. The extra
weight is primarily in the seat, chain, and steering. I don't know what the typical recumbent
weight 'penalty' is, but it is probably on the order of 5 pounds (2 kg.).

+ Recumbent butt. Some riders never have a problem with this, but some riders cannot ride certain
models for more than 20 minutes without getting an ache in the sit region. I am one of the
latter. I found a recumbent style that I like, but other styles don't work for me.

+ Numb toes and feet. This is fairly common among recumbent cyclists. Many recumbent owners claim
that various remedies (wiggling toes, wider shoes, sandals, orthodics, different style of seat,
etc.) solve the problem for them, but some riders continue to have this problem.

+ Sore knees. This seems to be more of a problem with recumbents than with upright styles,
especially in the first 2-3 weeks. Part of the reason for this is the inability to stand up when
the steepness/fitness quotient exceeds the bicycle's lowest gearing. As a result, recumbent
cyclists try to always spin and are much more likely to install shorter cranks than are cyclists
in general.

+ Quality of design and manufacture. These days, most recumbents no longer look like they were
made in your neighbor's garage with a welder, but the quality of design and manufacture is still
far behind that of upright bicycles. There are reasonably widespread problems in the recumbent
world, such as slipping seat clamps or idler wheels that only last a few hundred miles, that
really do not have analogous issues in the upright world.

+ Low-speed stability. Most recumbents don't handle well at very low speeds. Depending upon the
model and style, the minimum 'steerable' speed may be 3-4 mph.

Speed/aerodynamics is a complex topic. Many recumbent models truly are not fast. Many others are
about as aero as an upright bicycle wtih an aero bar. A few (low riders) are truly faster than
upright bicycles.

The way I look at it, recumbents and upright bicycles have approximately the same number/severity of
strengths and weaknesses. For folks who simply cannot get comfortable on an upright bicycle, whether
due to injury, body structure, or other reason, a recumbent may make sense.

My advice is to try many different recumbents styles and put as many miles on them as possible
before you buy. If you read the recumbent chat groups, you will notice that many recumbent cyclists
buy new models practically as often as most of us change underwear. Think about it.

Good luck.

 

[Bill Bushnell]

jacques <[email protected]> wrote:
> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm not
> sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the
> advantages of the bent thing.

> As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I will find them on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Try doing a Google Groups search on "recumbents" and read the first article in the list.

You don't mention why you're thinking of trying a recumbent, what model recumbent you're thinking
of, where you live, or what kind of riding you plan to do. My general suggestion is to do your
research, which you seem to be doing, and then try as many different models (long, short, high, low,
faired, unfaired) as possible before making a decision. You'll like some better than others, but
they're all going to feel different.

--
Bill Bushnell

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by Bill Bushnell
jacques <[email protected]> wrote:
> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm not
> sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the
> advantages of the bent thing.

Another thing to think about - recumbents generally require some kind of specialized carrier for your car - they don't fit on the standard roof rack or hitch mount.

 

[B. Sanders]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it
is
> > expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff
> > explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.
> >
> > As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I will find them on
> > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> > stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Very good question. I've owned 4 recumbents so far. They're the most fun you can have on two wheels,
IMO. There are some down sides, however:

- Lowered stance means reduced visibility (so get an orange flag...)
- Some 'bent's are hard to pick up and carry
- Harder to transport, in some cases, than upright bikes (varies a lot)
- Non-standard tires are hard to find (so buy some spares)
- They're pretty expensive (but so are good upright bikes)
- Can't hop curbs on a 'bent
- Can't stand to climb or sprint (but you can sprint)
- LWB 'bents have a large turning radius (SWB's can turn on a dime)
- Not welcome in roadie pelotons (due to "buzz saw" up front)
- Slower when climbing hills (but only slightly)

That's a pretty good outline of the possible criticisms of recumbent bikes. Recumbents vary wildly
in their handling, transportability, price, performance, height, etc. They're not all alike (as
uprights tend to be). Thus, it's hard to make blanket statements about them. However, I think most
of the above statements are largely true for most 'bents, to varying degrees. There are exceptions
to every rule, naturally.

That said, I'm very glad to own and ride a recumbent (two, actually). I've owned 5 of them,
including the world's fastest production bike, an M5 Low Racer (holds half a dozen world speed and
distance records). My RANS Rocket is one of my favorite bikes, and always puts a smile on my face.
In fact, I liked the Rocket so much that I sold the M5 Low Racer, which was a beast to ride (but
fun, and fast). The next recumbent I buy will probably have underseat steering, which I prefer.

> I've never ridden one, but one thing which I think might bother me a bit is the lower
> height-of-eye, making it more difficult to see over or through other vehicles. I've found that if
> a vehicle is too tall for me to see over on my DF bike, I can usually see through its windows, so
> I'm not completely blocked. I doubt most bents would be high enough to do that.

You'd be correct. It is an issue that I notice while riding 'bents, especially low racers
and trikes.

> Whether that would be enough to turn me off of a 'bent completely, I wouldn't know without
> trying it.

You should ride one, just to see what you think. I can almost guarantee that the ride will put a
smile on your face, if nothing else. I ride 'bents mostly because they're a hoot, and because
they're comfy. Oh, and they're pretty fast too.

-=B=-

 

[Chalo]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm not
> sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the
> advantages of the bent thing.

All I can tell you is, be sure to test ride before laying down your money.

I have not owned a 'bent, but I have spent long enough with two different 'bents to get to know
them. The ones I tried were dreadful, with quirky and unpredictable handling characteristics that
never allowed me to relax and enjoy the ride. I ride chopper bikes often, and these recumbents were
worse handling than most choppers. Fortunately for you, I don't think either kind I tried is still
being manufactured (one was an Infinity LWB and the other was a BikeE).

Remember that there is good handling, and there is handling "you can get used to". They are
not the same.

Chalo Colina

 

[-= ®Atzofratzo]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:30:58 -0500, "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That said, I'm very glad to own and ride a recumbent (two, actually). I've owned 5 of them,
>including the world's fastest production bike, an M5 Low Racer (holds half a dozen world speed and
>distance records). My RANS Rocket is one of my favorite bikes, and always puts a smile on my face.
>In fact, I liked the Rocket so much that I sold the M5 Low Racer, which was a beast to ride (but
>fun, and fast). The next recumbent I buy will probably have underseat steering, which I prefer.

I was in a shop yesterday and looked at the Rans Rocket. I was kinda put off by the 20" rear wheel,
but I feel like it's just an visual thing with me. Are there any practical advantages to the matched
20" setup over the traditional bent wheel setup of a larger rear/smaller front? The only thing I
could come up with is that the 20" rear wheel would be a little tougher, as I'm no lightweight.

Why do you prefer USS?

Thanks,

__________________
-= ®atzofratzo =-

®emove The fleA to reply

 

[Ralph Bean]

"-= ®atzofratzo =-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> ...Are there any practical advantages to the matched 20" setup over the traditional bent wheel
> setup of a larger rear/smaller front?

When you use a chain cleaning tool, you don't need to put the rear wheel up on a box (which gets
chain cleaning fluid all over it).

Ralph

 

[B. Sanders]

"-= ®atzofratzo =-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:30:58 -0500, "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >That said, I'm very glad to own and ride a recumbent (two, actually).
I've
> >owned 5 of them, including the world's fastest production bike, an M5 Low Racer (holds half a
> >dozen world speed and distance records). My RANS
Rocket
> >is one of my favorite bikes, and always puts a smile on my face. In fact,
I
> >liked the Rocket so much that I sold the M5 Low Racer, which was a beast
to
> >ride (but fun, and fast). The next recumbent I buy will probably have underseat steering, which I
> >prefer.

> I was in a shop yesterday and looked at the Rans Rocket. I was kinda put off by the 20" rear
> wheel, but I feel like it's just an visual thing with me.

It does look a little strange from certain angles. I think it's the large, wide seat that makes the
Rocket look odd. That doesn't stop local coeds from yelling "hey, great bike!" ;-) Besides - you're
not looking at the bike when you're riding it, are you?

> Are there any practical advantages to the matched 20" setup over the traditional bent wheel setup
> of a larger rear/smaller front? The only thing I could come up with is that the 20" rear wheel
> would be a little tougher, as I'm no lightweight.

The wheels are just plain bombproof. Illinois roads dish out some serious punishment, but the
Rocket's wheels are unfazed by it. They're perfectly true and round after 2000 miles of riding on
crappy roads. I'm 196lbs, and I think this bike could handle much more than that. It's surprisingly
tough, despite it's small size.

Also you only have to carry one spare innertube. Other than that, the only other advantage is the
price: The RANS Rocket is *much* cheaper than the RANS V-Rex, their flagship SWB bike. I've ridden
both bikes, and they handle very similarly. The Rocket may be slightly faster (that's a subject of
debate). I bought my Rocket used for $550, in mint condition, including the optional touring bag.
It's the pre-2001 model, which has a slightly shorter wheelbase than the current models. No problems
to report - just a fun, sporty, fast bike that really grows on you.

> Why do you prefer USS?

It's a very comfortable riding position. Your arms dangle, relaxed, at your sides and you steer with
fingertip control. It's very, very relaxing to ride that way. I can't think of a better position for
long distance tours. The bike that I owned before the M5 and the RANS Rocket was an original
(pre-Longbikes) Ryan Vanguard, probably one of the best USS/LWB designs ever made, and a direct
descendent of the Avatar project. (Yes, I sometimes regret having sold the Vanguard.)

-Barry

 

[B. Sanders]

"DiabloScott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Bill Bushnell wrote:
> > jacques <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is expensive and I'm
> > > not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the
> > > advantages of the bent thing.
>
> Another thing to think about - recumbents generally require some kind of specialized carrier for
> your car - they don't fit on the standard roof rack or hitch mount.

I've owned 5 recumbents, including a tadpole trike and a 7 1/2-foot-long low racer. Between my
little Honda Civic hatchback and a standard Rhode Gear trunk-mount bike carrier, I've never had a
problem hauling the recumbents. Quite a number of 'bents can fit just fine on a regular trunk-mount
carrier. Even my super-long Ryan Vanguard LWB fit on the rear carrier - hanging upside-down - but I
removed both of the quick-release wheels to keep it from sticking out past the sides of my
narrow-ish Honda. Toss the wheels in the trunk, and off you go. It's not a big deal; but YMMV, since
all 'bents are different.

HTH,

Barry

 

[Jacques]

> You don't mention why you're thinking of trying a recumbent, what model recumbent you're thinking
> of, where you live, or what kind of riding you plan to do. My general suggestion is to do your
> research, which you seem to be doing, and then try as many different models (long, short, high,
> low, faired, unfaired) as possible before making a decision. You'll like some better than others,
> but they're all going to feel different.

I'd consider a recumbent because (a) it looks nice and original; (b) people say they are fast; (c)
I've seen one or two people travelling on bents and they looked so relaxed. I'm living in western
Switzerland at the foot of the Jura range, with typical 300-700 m (~1000-2500 ft) climbs. I imagine
that this bike would be mostly for recreational purposes, as for my short 2x4 miles commuting in
town my standard bike is doing a perfect job. One of the problems is that almost nobody owns a bent
around here. There are no shops I know of who sell bents in the near area, although I met last
Sunday a guy who is starting a business importing Optima bikes. There are some shops not so far
eastwards where *they* speak german (I speak french) which makes things a little bit more
complicated - let's say not impossible but less spontaneous, requires an effort. OT: This is one
example of our Swiss national problem - communicating across the "Language Curtain".

Thanks everybody for all the critical inputs. They definitely help.

Jacques

 

[David]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>> I'd consider a recumbent because (a) it looks nice and original; (b)
> people say they are fast; (c) I've seen one or two people travelling on bents and they looked so
> relaxed.

Good reasons. If you buy, just make sure you buy a fast one. The only rider I know who was
disappointed with his bent had a fast road bike, bought an inexpensive, relatively slow bent, and
wasn't happy that the bent was a little slower.

 

[Kurt Fischer]

jacques <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm living in western Switzerland at the foot of the Jura range, with typical 300-700 m
> (~1000-2500 ft) climbs. I imagine that this bike would be mostly for recreational purposes, as for
> my short 2x4 miles commuting in town my standard bike is doing a perfect job. One of the problems
> is that almost nobody owns a bent around here. There are no shops I know of who sell bents in the
> near area, although I met last Sunday a guy who is starting a business importing Optima bikes.

First I second the advice to go for as much testrides as possible. You have to try before you can
decide, but please keep in mind that the _first_ impression is not always encouraging. It may take
some time to adept to the new way of riding and feel really comfortable. So don't judge too soon and
try as many models as possible.

And now some sources of information especially for French speaking people:

http://users.skynet.be/ligfiets/ Very good site by Michel Lemaitre

http://www.terrawatt.ch/clubvph.htm recumbent club of Geneva

http://www.bipbipvph.com/ Suisse dealer for Challenge

http://users.skynet.be/ligfiets/M5.htm Jean-Pierre Henon in Annecy sells M5 and Cycle Genius IIRC

http://www.ihpva.org/mailman/listinfo/vph French mailing list

HTH Kurt

 

[Bill Bushnell]

jacques <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm living in western Switzerland at the foot of the Jura range, with typical 300-700 m
> (~1000-2500 ft) climbs. I imagine that this bike would be mostly for recreational purposes

Jacques:

Try to limit your choice to those models at or under about 13 kilos in your size, the lighter the
better. There aren't too many in this weight range, and the lightest ones around 10 kilos will be
expensive, but since it sounds like you plan on riding for recreation in the mountains, you will be
disappointed in the performance (i.e. speed) of a heavy 'bent.

--
Bill Bushnell

 

[-= ®Atzofratzo]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:39:57 -0500, "B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snipped>

Thanks Barry. I'll keep all that in mind when I'm ready to buy one.

__________________
-= ®atzofratzo =-

®emove The fleA to reply

 

[Brian Hughes]

I enjoy my recumbents a lot. I have two--a short wheel base (a V-Rex) and a long wheel base (a
Tailwind) model. I also enjoy my three uprights a lot (a MTB, a touring/commuting bike, and a
racing/road bike). You are right in that many people at alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent are very pro
recumbent. But keep in mind that probably all of these people started out riding uprights just like
everyone else. So they formed their opinion after riding and experiencing both types of bikes. Some
anti-recumbent people have never even tried one.

In my opinion, both recumbents and uprights have advantages and disadvantages. The number one
advantage for a recumbent IMHO is comfort. I can sit and ride a recumbent all day without any
discomfort, with the obvious exception of leg muscles. Some people complain of recumbent butt, but
have never experienced that and I'm not even sure what it feels like. Maybe I just have too much
natural padding on my rear. As far as speed goes, my recumbents aren't built for speed like the low
racer styles but they're definitely faster than my MTB, just a little faster than my touring bike,
but my Cannondale CAAD3 road racing bike would beat them on any race, with the only exception being
a downhill race. Meanwhile, uprights have superior low speed handling characteristics and can jump
curbs much better than recumbents. My recumbents are strictly for the road; they have no off the
paved road ability--I've tried that and it wasn't pretty.

I'm probably rare in that I ride all my bikes frequently and don't favor one over all the rest. But
one thing I hear a lot that I disagree with is that since uprights are higher they are more visible
in/to traffic. First off I'm not sure having my head a few inches higher matters. I mean a driver
can see the painted lines on the road and they are as low as you can get. Also recumbents are rare,
so people notice them when they see them. I've experience this frequently when I get many second
looks from drivers when I'm on a recumbent, whereas nobody gives me a second glance when I'm on an
upright. I've also had two very close calls this summer where drivers nearly left hooked me (turning
across the road, right across my path and coming within inches of crushing me) apparently not
noticing I was there or grossly underestimating how fast I was riding. Both times I was on my
upright road bike (wearing my blaze orange vest I might add). Thank God I have good brakes. I have
never had that happen to me on a recumbent in two years of riding them. These close calls might have
just been bad luck, but I don't feel one bit safer on my upright than my recumbent in traffic--in
fact, I feel somewhat safer on my recumbent (probably because of these recent close calls).

 

[Joseph Kochanow]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > You don't mention why you're thinking of trying a recumbent, what model recumbent you're
> > thinking of, where you live, or what kind of riding you plan to do. My general suggestion is to
> > do your research, which you seem to be doing, and then try as many different models (long,
> > short, high, low, faired, unfaired) as possible before making a decision. You'll like some
> > better than others, but they're all going to feel different.
>
> I'd consider a recumbent because (a) it looks nice and original; (b) people say they are fast; (c)
> I've seen one or two people travelling on bents and they looked so relaxed. I'm living in western
> Switzerland at the foot of the Jura range, with typical 300-700 m (~1000-2500 ft) climbs. I
> imagine that this bike would be mostly for recreational purposes, as for my short 2x4 miles
> commuting in town my standard bike is doing a perfect job. One of the problems is that almost
> nobody owns a bent around here. There are no shops I know of who sell bents in the near area,
> although I met last Sunday a guy who is starting a business importing Optima bikes. There are some
> shops not so far eastwards where *they* speak german (I speak french) which makes things a little
> bit more complicated - let's say not impossible but less spontaneous, requires an effort. OT: This
> is one example of our Swiss national problem - communicating across the "Language Curtain".
>
> Thanks everybody for all the critical inputs. They definitely help.
>
> Jacques

You got it right by admitting that it is difficult to find any good information about recumbents.
This is their biggest problem. All bents are not equal. There are bents that I like a whole lot and
there are bents that I hate so much that their owners get very angry with me. If I lived near the
Alps I would look for a lowracer like a Razz Fazz or Velocraft that weighs less than 20 pounds.
After all, you live in Switzerland and you probably have enough money to buy a good recumbent.

 

[Risto Varanka]

jacques <[email protected]> wrote:

: I'd consider a recumbent because (a) it looks nice and original; (b) people say they are fast; (c)
: I've seen one or two people travelling on bents and they looked so relaxed. I'm living in western
: Switzerland at the foot of the Jura range, with typical 300-700 m (~1000-2500 ft) climbs. I
: imagine that this bike would be mostly for recreational purposes, as for my short 2x4 miles
: commuting in

It's a good idea to discuss with local bent riders so you know what works best in your locale.

For one thing, every kind of braking system might have issues with overheating on long descents, so
you might need tandem grade brakes or duplicate brakes... It depends, but might make sense to
consider. Are you going to do loaded touring?

If you want to sacrifice some speed and money, you can go for a trike. You don't need to balance a
trike when going uphill, so you can go very slowly and climb in a very relaxed fashion. Be sure to
get low enough gearing, at least initially you'll have less power for climbing than on the upright.

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