Unhappy bentriders ?

[Risto Varanka]

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.

More research might be in order... Eventually the urge to buy becomes greater, and people shell out
the money. I think this can be a very good way of learning about bents, you get to experience all
the practical issues and learn the intricacies of a particular model and the general characteristics
of a certain category of a bent No bike is perfect and bents come in all hues of the rainbow so
eventually people get the 2nd bent with a different set of basic characteristics...

You can go through old threads from the newsgroups at http://groups.google.com/ - there are lots
of them...

: 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.

This conclusion might be incorrect, because:

Bent users will face a number of unfamiliar issues when they adopt the pastime. A good way to get
over them is to discuss them with the online community.

People will like some models and dislike the others. Criticism can
- and should - be voiced even if people take into account the sentiments of those who ride or build
the misfit models.

On alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent you can find people who ride bents daily. On a generic newsgroup you
can bump into people who give cons about bents based on armchair reasoning or commonly accepted
myths. In any case the most enthusiastic recumbent evangelists would be found in both newsgroups.

About people who went bent and came back... I know there is at least a small number of those cases,
but I don't have a clear picture of the reasons. Maybe a good part of those people went bent for
speed but the expectations didn't realize. This could be because of a short conditioning period to
bent riding (your muscles could need years) or a model of bent that doesn't offer top performance.

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

 

[Risto Varanka]

-= ®atzofratzo =- <[email protected]> wrote:

: 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?

A small wheel is quicker to accelerate and also more compact. On the other hand, a big wheel goes
more smoothly over bumps, gives typical gearing options and a 26" wheel can be easily fitted with
studded tyres.

: Why do you prefer USS?

Somehow it gives me a feeling of a much larger and more powerful vehicle Maybe it comes from
playing all the simulator games...

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

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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.

> : 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.

> About people who went bent and came back... I know there is at least a small number of those
> cases, but I don't have a clear picture of the reasons. Maybe a good part of those people went
> bent for speed but the expectations didn't realize. This could be because of a short conditioning
> period to bent riding (your muscles could need years) or a model of bent that doesn't offer top
> performance.

I would think that speed and comfort are the only reasons for bent-riding. Well, speed, comfort, and
weirdness.

Given that, if bents aren't notably faster than uprights, and you don't have a comfort issue, why
would you?

I have no doubt recumbent bikes have their own rewards, notably in that some people can ride them
who cannot ride DF bikes because of back issues, or because they're more comfy, or because the
faired ones are quick on the flats. But it reminds me of a discussion with one friend in which he
suggested it took two or three listen-throughs of the Ring Cycle to really appreciate Wagner's
genius. I countered that after investing that much time, I'd be all but forced to agree it was great
if only to avoid admitting I'd just wasted so much time.

Similarly with the process of getting a recumbent, it's important to be very deeply convinced that a
recumbent is the right bike for you, because the only way to find out decisively is to invest a
considerable amount of cash (well, considerable for most cyclists) and time in the buying and
learning to ride the chosen bike.

I'm not saying that bent-riders are wrong, or even that they are as evil as Ring-nuts, but I am
pointing out that most of the people who currently ride recumbents were convinced they would really
enjoy riding a recumbent before they purchased one.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Robert Chung]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> I would think that speed and comfort are the only reasons for bent-riding. Well, speed, comfort,
> and weirdness.
>
> Given that, if bents aren't notably faster than uprights, and you don't have a comfort issue, why
> would you?

For the weirdness.

I'm going to cut-and-paste in a message from another list to which I subscribe, written by a
recumbent dealer in response to a question from a guy who had tried a recumbent. I think the views
expressed are quite reasonable. For various reasons, I'm going to omit the names.

> > I'm sure not every recumbent rider is an aching ex-upright rider. I'm sure many recumbent riders
> > were just naturally drawn to them for their own merit. My own experience with recumbent is that
> > instead of fixing some aches, new ones were caused. My knees ached like never before and my
> > groin was sore. Some of that could be chalked to the newness of the activity, and some might
> > have been mitigated by minor adjustments, but I've never had such immediate pain from riding an
> > upright.
>
> Sounds like the recumbent wasn't set up well for you (it is easy to be
way
> off on the setup on an unfamiliar bike of a completely different design
than
> what you normally ride). It has been my experience in fitting riders to recumbents over the past
> six years that those who have the most miles on road bikes tend to have the most difficult
> transitions to recumbents in terms of learning to balance differently, suppressing old kinetic
habits, and
> acclimating their legs to the different effects of gravity in the
recumbent
> position. The riders who make the smoothest transitions are generally
people
> who are less in shape and haven't been riding for years, I guess because they have less to
> "relearn." It has been said that a high level rider
needs
> approximately 5000 miles of recumbent riding before they can equal the power output and pedalling
> efficiency of their road bike. Many people
don't
> have enough interest or a long enough attention span to invest that much time into trying
> something new when their existing mount is serving them fairly well. Not fixing what isn't broken
> makes sense for many riders, especially if their existing road bikes are serving them as well as
> they want.
>
> The riders I find who are willing to stick with a recumbent tend to be
those
> whose back, neck, hand or genital problems prevent them from doing any significant distance on
> their conventional bikes after already trying
new
> saddles and stems. Another subsection of recumbent riders are people
like
> [name deleted] who aren't having a significant discomfort problem with
their road
> bikes but are very open minded, curious and or have an interest in new technologies and want to
> try owning a recumbent just for the fun of it.
Many
> times this sort of rider is the stereotypical bearded engineer who
normally
> lives a conservative life but has a secret desire to generate a lot of anonymous attention in a
> public place and figures if anyone asks they
can
> tell them all sorts of technical reasons why they ride a recumbent.

> It is true that most of the best selling recumbents on the US market
such as
> [name deleted] have higher aerodynamic drag than a conventional rider in
the
> drops. I don't know how the all recumbents are faster on level ground
myth
> got started but I always educate my customers about the actual
performance
> of recumbents and if they have any interest in performance riding I
steer
> them away from the average recumbent designs and towards the higher performance models.

 

[Risto Varanka]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

: I would think that speed and comfort are the only reasons for bent-riding. Well, speed, comfort,
: and weirdness.

That is cutting a long story short. I think there are a million little reasons for riding or not
riding a bent.

Why I ride an all-around tadpole trike? The speed is about the same as on my all-around hybrid
upright. The comfort is certainly there, but so is the price. Maybe it's the weirdness aspect that's
important for me.

There are a number of little advantages that make the trike platform interesting. Stability can be a
great plus when the ground is all icy. I can eat more easily while riding. When loaded, the vehicle
is more stable than a conventional bike. Usually I don't need to unclip when stopping. And so on...

Also the feeling-and-experience aspects are quite important. Some people enjoy sitting close to the
ground. Or pedalling with the legs in front. Or steering with two vertical USS bars. Bents can be
lots of fun just because they are a different ride from conventional bikes, and trikes are still
more different (and more fun I'd say!). Maybe it is novelty or personal preference that figures in,
but I would say it's not only that...

It's difficult to assess all these aspects unless one is riding one of these special vehicles.
Therefore, bent riding can be seen as a kind of experiment - even though some models have matured
far beyond experimental. If bents are a viable platform for some cycling needs, the riders can come
back and inform the rest of the cycling community, enriching the pastime by taking it into new
dimensions.

: Similarly with the process of getting a recumbent, it's important to be very deeply convinced that
: a recumbent is the right bike for you, because the only way to find out decisively is to invest a
: considerable amount of cash (well, considerable for most cyclists) and time in the buying and
: learning to ride the chosen bike.

It's true... Purchasing a bent is not a small step. For some people the step is quite easy to take,
others hesitate for years...

Maybe one conclusion is that people who ride bents give very positive reviews because the bent
platform suits their riding needs very well.

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

 

[Joseph Kochanow]

"jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 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
I ride regular bikes when I do not want to be noticed by the police. I have never been pulled over
when riding a regular bike. On a bent it happens every six months like clockwork. I can ride a
regular bike in traffic and break every traffic law without anyone noticing. Cops notice bents and
like to hassle bent riders. When I go dumpster diving I always do it on a regular bike. It is
easier to look into dumpsters on the higher reglar bike. If I have to make a hasty retreat, it is
easier to blend into a crowd on a regular bike. I would not recommend a bent as a getaway vehicle
for a bank robbery. Regular bikes have been successfully used as getaway vehicles because nobody
notices them.

 

[Ckaudio1]

Any claims that recumbents are *always* faster than upright bikes is BS.

Ok, I will assume that you've never actually been able to compare a lowracer to an upright racing
bike. Even with no tailfairing, the whole pack of 'A' riders on our wednesday night fast ride are
dropped by 1 single Optima Baron. On an upright bike I can barely hang with the fast guys for 6
miles. On the baron I smoke them all by 6 to 8 minutes on a 32 mile ride. You must mean that bents
aren't fast on mountain bike trails. If you mean a wedgie can outclimb me on a 1 mile hill or
grade.........yeah probably........but what difference does it make when I get to the hill and go
over the hill before they even get to the hill? Just because you haven't seen a fast recumbent
before doesn't mean that they aren't out there. When is the last time you did a solo 4 hour 13 min
century on an upright? I did. Did you?

George <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "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.

 

[Ckaudio1]

Any claims that recumbents are *always* faster than upright bikes is BS.

Ok, I will assume that you've never actually been able to compare a lowracer to an upright racing
bike. Even with no tailfairing, the whole pack of 'A' riders on our wednesday night fast ride are
dropped by 1 single Optima Baron. On an upright bike I can barely hang with the fast guys for 6
miles. On the baron I smoke them all by 6 to 8 minutes on a 32 mile ride. You must mean that bents
aren't fast on mountain bike trails. If you mean a wedgie can outclimb me on a 1 mile hill or
grade.........yeah probably........but what difference does it make when I get to the hill and go
over the hill before they even get to the hill? Just because you haven't seen a fast recumbent
before doesn't mean that they aren't out there. When is the last time you did a solo 4 hour 13 min
century? I did. Did you?

George <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "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.

 

[John Foltz]

Jacques,

There have been a few riders in my club who got recumbents and then went back. Two of them rode the
bents half-heartedly, and eventually sold them because they were slower than their uprights. No duh!
Another had a problem with the seat - a recall item which he refused to take care of; instead he
sold it. Yet another sold his because of 'recumbutt'. Although, in fairness, he admitted that he had
problems sitting in cars too. These examples are from a club with over 100 current recumbent riders.

Here is my best attempt at a fair comparison, although I admit to being somewhat biased.

http://www.biketcba.org/TRICORR/compare.html

What others have written is totally correct: You will almost certainly be slower on a recumbent in
the beginning. Where you go from there depends on your dedication to training and the speed
potential of the recumbent you choose.

On a final note, there are a few new models of recumbents starting to appear, called 'high racers.'
They have dual 650C or 26" wheels, and might appeal better to your sense of aesthetics.
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____