Why do people ride recumbents

[Peter Clinch]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> This assumes they see you in the first place to get the WTF factor. It's a point that puts me off
> bents (in London) too, and also riders being less able to see over cars must be a disadvantage.

Yes and no: I can't see over cars but I can see *into* them better, being at the same eye level. So
I can see when I've been seen much better. I ride both sorts in traffic, and don't feel any more
vulnerable on the 'bent. In fact, if anything, the positive safety features of better
braking/stopping characteristics (you won't go flying over bars) and heads up view of the road by
default make me feel safer on the 'bent, if anything. Would probably be a different matter on a
lowracer, but I haven't got a lowracer...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Patrick Herring]

G S Banner wrote:
>
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
...
> > You spotted them!
>
> True, but I commute on a road bike. I feel vulnerable enough, but their heads seem (to me) to be
> at about half the height of mine.
>
> Still, the consensus seems to be that being seen is not a problem.

Personally I like being high enough to see over most cars to see what the traffic is doing,
particularly as I can't accelerate or brake as effectively as the cars can.

--
Patrick Herring http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring

 

[G S Banner]

> Yeah, but how many of the bikes on your commute do you notice? I bet you a quid you notice 100% of
> the bents
>

Well, I see them all, and I notice most (if you get the difference) - I'm a bit frame-nosey.

You would've won your quid though!

 

[Peter Clinch]

Patrick Herring wrote:

> Personally I like being high enough to see over most cars to see what the traffic is doing,
> particularly as I can't accelerate or brake as effectively as the cars can.

Initial acceleration on a bike, assuming you have it in the right gear and have *some* muscle, ought
to be as good as most cars in traffic. If your braking sucks that much, get better brakes!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Patrick Herring wrote:

> Personally I like being high enough to see over most cars to see what the traffic is doing,
> particularly as I can't accelerate or brake as effectively as the cars can.

On a recumbent you can brake more effectively than would be required by the MoT standard for cars.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Graeme Dods]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... <snip>
> No wheel shimmy, no frame oscillation, and if you did come off you'd be close to the ground and
> hit feet first.

Now I've always wanted a recumbent (Windcheetah or maybe Trice X2 to get my wife involved), but your
last statement summoned up images of sliding rapidly along the road grinding my **** down to the
bone! Ouch! Still, not much of a problem on a bent trike I suppose.

Have fun!

Graeme

 

[Peter Clinch]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> More of an issue (in this vein, sort of) for me would be reluctance to hold up cars for longer
> behind me when climbing steep hills on narrow roads. It's bad enough on my road bike and I just
> know that I would be so much slower on a bent uphill.

Sorry, but my computer speakers are spitting out the unmistakable sound of straws being clutched
there! If you have a procession of cars behind you and want to let them past, pull into the side. It
will delay you a few seconds at most, and usually if it's just one vehicle there are enough
opportunities to wave stuff through without having to stop in any case.

Just go and try one properly, and then you won't have to invent what you think *might* be the case.
Why do thought experiments when the real thing is easy and far more informative?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Andyp]

I've read the whole thread and found it very interesting. Noone yet has talked about going up hill
on a bent. Is it easier, harder or the same as a wedgie?. I have never ridden a bent but always
thought that not being able to stand on the pedals when the going gets tough to be a problem. I am
willing to be enlightened.

AndyP

--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates

 

[W K]

"andyp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I've read the whole thread and found it very interesting. Noone yet has talked about going up hill
> on a bent. Is it easier, harder or the same as
a
> wedgie?. I have never ridden a bent but always thought that not being able to stand on the pedals
> when the going gets tough to be a problem.

I don't know the answer to that personally, but to me its a non problem. I almost always ride
sitting down, partly because I do a lot of tandeming, partly because when I restarted cycling I
lived on huge hills where the limiting factor was fitness (and not stopping pedalling for 0.1
seconds- EVER), and standing up didn't help with either of these points. (Obviously with this style
I need low gears)

Apart from the weight difference various things I've read suggest that you go up with about the same
speed/effort, BUT wedgie riders will stand up and go faster, but use a lot more energy. Something
you might not want to do if you make yourself too knackered to keep going all day.

 

[Peter Clinch]

andyp wrote:
> I've read the whole thread and found it very interesting. Noone yet has talked about going up hill
> on a bent. Is it easier, harder or the same as a wedgie?. I have never ridden a bent but always
> thought that not being able to stand on the pedals when the going gets tough to be a problem. I am
> willing to be enlightened.

It's generally reckoned they don't do so well, but the standing on the pedals thing is a red herring
to some degree as on a well designed 'bent you can push back against the seat instead.

All other things being equal a 'bent is typically heavier due to the more elaborate seating
arrangements, and heavier means slower up hills as you're not going fast enough for the aero to
help. My 'bent is certainly quite slow up hills, but as it tips the scales at over 40 lbs[1] that's
not surprising. But with the right gears you'll get up, even on a tank like that: my "shakedown
cruise" was on Arran with full camping luggage (4 panniers worth) and I took in a 1000' climb with
no breaks going West and 750' with no breaks not too long afterwards coming back East.

OTOH, you'll be quicker coming down the other side as you'll probably have better aero and ought to
have better cornering and braking at speed, especially laden.

Most of my rides involve good sizes of hills as most places I go for day tours involve crossing the
Sidlaws (usually a ~500' uninterrupted climb at some point in the day, and a succession of smaller
steps to the same height in the other direction), and despite that I ride a 'bent by choice. More
comfort is the most important point in making the day as a whole more enjoyable, and the descents
are certainly a wheeze as well.

Pete.

[1] Yes, that's a lump, but it includes dynamo lighting, the most substantial racks I've seen on a
bike (12 mm tubing), full suspension (which doesn't pogo as is often the case on many uprights
with full sus used for climbing) and build quality modelled on a battle tank as it's designed
for serious unsupported touring and is thus in oversized chromo steel rather than a minimum of
carbon fibre or aluminium. Plus a very comfy seat, of course.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Andyp]

Thanks, I'll have a go one day. I've never seen one in the LBS and do not fancy test riding at
bikefix in central London.

AndyP

--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world" JRR Toliken, The Hobbit

 

[Pete Biggs]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>> Incidentally, like so many interpretations/conclusions of studies, I wonder about whether the ten
>> years thing is cause or effect. Of course cycling makes you fittER, but _naturally_
>> (genetically?) unfit and unhealthy people tend to choose not to cycle.
>
> I don't know so much. The local CTC group's Tuesday Wobble sees as many tubby chaps as thin ones.

Another possible factor comes to mind: How many smokers cycle, and how many cyclists smoke?

~PB

 

[Peter Clinch]

andyp wrote:
> Thanks, I'll have a go one day. I've never seen one in the LBS and do not fancy test riding at
> bikefix in central London.

Not very likely in the near future an LBS would have much aside from the Giant semi-recumbent, and
IMHO you'd be better off on a "proper" that isn't designed to not put off "normal" buyers.

At present, I think the specialists are the places to go. But there's others aside from Bikefix.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

andyp wrote:

> Thanks, I'll have a go one day. I've never seen one in the LBS and do not fancy test riding at
> bikefix in central London.

I think they have an offroad test area, but ICBW. There's also Future Cycles and West Country
Recumbents (in Yorkshire, obviously) - and during the year there will be a number of rallies and
such where you can see and play with bents.

You know it makes sense

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[James Annan]

Nick Kew wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard
> of "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Incidentally, like so many interpretations/conclusions of studies, I wonder about whether the ten
>>>years thing is cause or effect.
>>
>
> Undoubtedly an element of effect, since we exclude most of the seriously ill.

But also _include_ a set of people who are specifically advised to take up cycling as a form of
exercise due to their previous poor health.

I think it is very unlikely that the extra years are predominantly due to cyclists being a
self-selecting already healthy group.

For instance, I was healthy and active long before I became a `cyclist' in any regular sense.

James

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:36:16 +0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Pete Biggs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'll be asking more practical questions about dealers, test rides, etc. nearer the time (will
>>>still be a while off yet).
>>
>>
>> <whisper>Windcheetah available right now on eBay</whisper>
>
>Don't remind me. I've been warned by her that warns me that I shouldn't even think about it while
>in the process of buying a house. If she sees as much as one more wheel in the house she'll have my
>guts, heaven help me if three appear!

Easy, get e recumbent tandem trike. Then SWMBO can join in the fun. All you need is a secondhand one
for sale. Ooh look, an email from the tandem club for sale board has just fluttered onto my PC.

>Still, I have a TESSA which matures in May and the house should be bought and moved into
>by then

You know it makes sense.

Tim
--
fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

[W K]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
> > Going recumbent for a tandem isn't nearly as much advantage as going recumbent for a single bike
> > - you've already got a pretty good aero advantage.
> >
> > On a freewheel test, our GTT only just beat the upright tandem (aero
bars on
> > the upright may well have clinched it, it was that close).
>
> But is that a bike or trike? On a 'bent trike you'll have greater frontal area because of the
> sideways spread and greater rolling resistance from the extra wheel.
>
> Though in any case, SWMBO would get to sit in a comfy chair, in which case never mind the aero...

May also help to alleviate the "slipstream concentration of flatulence" effect that can be
experienced with an upright tandem.

 

[Richard Keating]

In message <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs
<pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> writes
>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>>> it's a bit of a disadvantage not being able to see over other cars'.
>>
>>> Yes, but cyclists are generally more vulnerable than motorists so it's good to have advantages
>>> over them.
>>
>> Other than living ten years longer, you mean?
>
>Ah but do /benters/ live ten years longer than motorists? ;-)
>
>Incidentally, like so many interpretations/conclusions of studies, I wonder about whether the ten
>years thing is cause or effect. Of course cycling makes you fittER, but _naturally_ (genetically?)
>unfit and unhealthy people tend to choose not to cycle. It's a leap to assume that these people
>would automatically live ten years longer on average just if they took up cycling. For all we know,
>cyclists could live ten years longer even if they never rode a bike!

Indeed, nobody's ever done a proper randomized trial, so there's always the possibility of bias.
However, Andersen and colleagues (Andersen LB, Schnohr P, Schroll M, Hein HO. All-Cause Mortality
Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to Work. Arch
Intern Med. 2000;160:1621-1628; "Bicycling to work decreased risk of mortality in approximately 40%
after multivariate adjustment, including leisure time physical activity.) did do statistical
adjustment for the obvious biases.

Professor Andersen tells me that there was a measurable effect of cycling, reducing the death rate,
even in the group that did lots of sports. So I don't think that this sort of bias can account for
the whole of the beneficial effect. Some of it must be real.

--
Richard Keatinge

http://www.keatinge.net

 

[Rory]

"G S Banner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I've spotted a few recumbents from time to time .. I really can't see what the attraction is -
> what is it?
>
> So enlighten me.

As my brother commented when a 'bent passed by: "they think they're so clever!"

 

[Bugbear]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> >They strike me as waaaay to low be ridden safely in traffic
>
> Not a problem. It's called the WTF factor - as in "what the F*** is THAT?!" - you get ten times
> the notice a wedgie does.

Works for tandem trikes too ;-)

BugBear