Riding a 'bent is like riding a moped is like riding a....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

As is well known, I am the lone voice of sanity on this board re: road bikes :D

Regular road bikes hurt your ass, wrists, and back, and you spend all your time looking down at the front tire. Plus there is mounting evidence that they make Mr. Happy very unhappy.

All land speed records are held by recumbents. The only reason top cyclists don't ride them is that they are illegal for competition. Besides that, they are about a billion times more comfortable to ride, I don't have to crack my neck to see where I am or where I'm going, and no one wants to steal it because they can't ride it away.

But mainly, it's a grin to ride. I never rode for fun until I got one.

---

I recognize recumbents as another form of bicycle, but why are 'bent riders always so preachy?

Land speed records are completely different from any form of bicycle racing. Even if the UCI allowed it you would never see a recumbent in the TdF or any other grand tour, any of the spring classics, or for God's sake on a velodrome. 'Bents would get eaten alive in small regional city crit races.

For me it is always about being in the "active" position, just like skiing, or what coaches teach little kids in baseball and soccer. Sitting on a traditional bike is almost like being in a sprinting position, your head is high, you are aware and ready to lean and react.

Being on a recumbent, you are prone, laid back, vulnerable, and not in a really good position to shift your weight around or make a sudden movement.

Riding a 'bent is like riding a moped is like riding a....

But, 'bents are pleasant, fast enough and much easier on the lower back, hips, neck and wrists. In fact going downhill on a bent is one of the more thrilling things to be done on a bicycle, especially a long or medium wheelbase model. The stability is inspiring and the high speed cornering feel is equally so. I haven't been on a conventional road bike in years and wouldn't trade my Burley Limbo for any regular road bike. Every now and then I think that I'd like something that climbs a bit better but then it goes downhill or flat again and the marginal climbability (is that a word?) is all but forgotten. The visibility thing is a myth, drivers are all stupid and don't see bikes as viable road vehicles anyway so it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is all bikes are good (except BSO's).



BSO = Bike shaped object = department store garbage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

Even if the UCI allowed it you would never see a recumbent in the TdF or any other grand tour, any of the spring classics, or for God's sake on a velodrome. 'Bents would get eaten alive in small regional city crit races.

---

You are exactly wrong. Recumbents were banned from racing by the UCI in 1934 because they were *winning* too many races and setting too many records: in velodromes, outdoors, and even the Paris-Limoges. They remain illegal to this day. Here's what happened, and how:

"Winning Forbidden: The History of the Recumbent Bicycle"
http://www.bikefix.co.uk/forbidden.html

Let me sum it up: Recumbents are the Spatula of bicycles.

They're a superior design for real-world cycling that is ignored by most cyclists because they look so different than the gear they're used to. But once you spend a day or two riding them, you won't ever want to go back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

Being on a recumbent, you are prone, laid back, vulnerable, and not in a really good position to shift your weight around or make a sudden movement.

---

I have commuted daily on recumbents for three years, and uprights for seven, so I think I can make a fair comparison.

Safety? No contest. On a road bike, you have to crane your neck at an unnatural angle to see anything but your front tire and a few feet of road in front of it. This is really unsafe, especially when you're tired and can't hold your head up. On a recumbent, you can always see everything in front of you, so you are safer -- and it's a lot more fun to ride when you can see where you are and where you're going.

Vulnerable? I've crashed both. On a road bike, you are leading with your head, and most crashes result in an endo, where you launch onto your head from a height. On a recumbent, you are leading with your feet and your center of gravity is much lower. Usually you just tip to the side and land on your butt and elbow.

Shift your weight? At road speeds, if you're trying to turn by shifting your weight, you're doing it the hard way. Countersteering with your bars will turn you faster than throwing your body around, no matter what kind of bicycle (or motorcycle) you ride.

Prone? Well, supine, actually. I'm relaxing in a big fat lawn chair with no pressure points, and I'm still more aerodynamic than you are hunched over on aero bars.

I remember my first long ride on my new bent: we hit a pullout going up Monitor Pass and stopped for rest and water. I joined everyone else in sitting on the guardrail or the curb, but after a couple minutes, realized "What the hell am I doing? The most comfortable seat for twenty miles any direction is the one on my bike." So I got back on. I can finish a century and not walk like a cowboy: try that on an upright.

The reason we get defensive is because people who don't ride recumbents keep repeating bad information about them.

[Note: Off-road is a different story. I own two upright mountain bikes, and they are the correct tool for anything more technical than rails-to-trails.]

Fair enough, I guess it really is something limited by what is 'cool' and tradition.

As someone who started riding on bmx and then mt bikes, my handling skills are all based from situations encountered while riding those styles. Road riding is something I have just started in the last few years. Just as you mentioned, Spats, the traditional bike is still the proper tool for off road technicality.

On the long grand tours and classics, I can accept that a recumbent could do well, but still on short crits and even in crowded track races, I still see the double diamond being a better ride due to the technicality of handling needed. It is probably due to my inexperience of *never* riding a recumbent, but it scares the shit out of me thinking about going into a 90deg city street corner in a peloton of 40 riders at 35mph on a recumbent.

It's good to get some perspective from you guys though, all the recumbent riders I have met and talked with on the road are all crusty old engineers who do nothing but pick apart every inefficiency of the traditional bike design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Let me sum it up: Recumbents are the Spatula of bicycles.

---

That is an interesting way of looking at things. I haven't skied spatulas or ridden recumbents enough to argue the point, but I appreciate the way you've opened up the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

The reason we get defensive is because people who don't ride recumbents keep repeating bad information about them.

---

I doubt that this is truly the case. Like most things where someone is different and they believe it to be better, they make a fuss. Plus, a disproportionate percentage of recumbent riders are engineers - engineers freak out when they feel their logic is attacked.

I can't get a recumbent because I am saving up for a Segway first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Let me sum it up: Recumbents are the Spatula of bicycles.

---

So are you saying they do one they pretty well but mainly just differently and a whole bunch of other things really poorly?

One case of shifting weight is moving the mass in line with the peddles to allow body weight to help accelerate and also use more muscle mass.

I find it hard to believe a recumbant will climb as well since aerodynamics are out of the picture and you are left with a relatively inefficient peddling poistion. I also find it hard to believe recumbants are significantly or any faster than a working peloton. Recumbants lack the stability and acceleration to join that peloton.

I guess when I see recumbants passing me especially up a hill and able to maintain a stable staight line I'll be more interested. Maybe it's the quality of the rider I see on them but I take it to be the nature of the machinery.

Why aren't recumbants seen much in triathlons? They have dispersed with the double triagle rule as well as most others applying to bike design.

I find recumbant riders to give a look like they are pretty cool and smug to boot. The smugness really isn't very inviting. Ironically some are also quite evangelical. I don't invite bible thumpers into my house and their coolness or not isn't the reason there either.

I am looking for a tandem recumbent bike,
where the two riders are back to back.

Yes, this means one rider is driving while the other is looking the other way.

I have seen one, but was too far away to ask where it came from.
Anyone know where I can find one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleAl

I am looking for a tandem recumbent bike,
where the two riders are back to back.

---

Here are the facts you requested:
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co...wosCompany.htm

http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co...arge/Flevo.jpg

Here is why more triathletes don't ride bents: they're illegal. From the USAT rule book:
"(c) A vertical line touching the front most point of the saddle may be no more than 5 centimeters in front of and no more than 15 centimeters behind a vertical line passing through the center of the chain wheel axle, and the cyclist must not have the capability of adjusting the saddle beyond these limits during competition."

I rode the same commute for three years, buying a recumbent aobut halfway through. My best time on a road bike (with Conti GP tires @ ~110PSI) was appx. 32:30. My best time on the green bike below was appx. 28:00.

It's hard to measure objectively, but here are a the efficiency tradeoffs with a recumbent in my experience:

1) A more "open" riding position, i.e. larger the angle between legs and torso, makes you more aerodynamically efficient but slightly less pedal-efficient. This is actually a known tradeoff when adjusting seating position: the racier recumbents have a really high bottom bracket so that the rider can have a more "closed" position (better for hills and full-power riding) while still being aerodynamically efficient:
http://www.reynoldsweldlabs.com/Pict...3/douglas2.jpg
(Note: some random guy, not me.)
This is more intimidating for novices to ride, and can actually be less efficient if you're just tiddling around. For general use, I prefer this:
http://www.bentrideronline.com/Buyer...giro-thumb.gif

2) You are also correct that you can't stand up and crank on a recumbent. However, some handlebar designs let you pull on them, which is effectively the same thing. This is another known tradeoff: the "praying mantis" (bars behind knees, hands near chest) hand position is slightly more aerodynamic, but affords no leverage. The "Superman" (bars over and around knees, arms straight out and hands outside legs) is slightly less aerodynamic, but you can pull on them going up hills. It's not as helpful as standing and cranking, though.

3) A recumbent will be heavier than a road bike: the lightest bents are just over 20 pounds, which is about six pounds heavier than the lightest road bikes. (Though this is not a huge difference once you add rider weight.) Typical weights are more like 25-30# versus 18-20# for road bikes.

4) On the other hand, riding a recumbent is infinitely more comfortable than a road bike. This means you wil ride it more, because you aren't in pain when you stop. Riding more means you are in better shape and you will go faster, no matter what you ride!

Summary: most 'bents should be faster on flats, downhills, and slight upgrades, but slower on strong uphills. The strong uphill disadvantage can be lessened, but not removed entirely. This is consistent with my experience.

If I was riding a pure hillclimb, or something like the Death Ride which has almost no flats and where the downhills are so steep that you spend most of your time on the brakes, an upright is probably more efficient. But for most real-world rides, I'm faster on the bent.

It's just like a Spatula: they're better than regular skis in any loose snow conditions. The only time I want to be on regular skis anymore is on groomers or real hardpack.

Stability? Recumbents are more stable in a sprint, because they don't weave side to side like someone hammering an upright. Here's how to piss off recumbent riders: say something that anyone who rides one knows is flat out wrong.

Part of the current prejudice against bents definitely has to do with the riders. A lot of recumbent riders are older men who were forced to ride them because injuries prevent them from riding an upright -- or engineers who can see the obvious design advantages. These are not the fast people :p Not to mention that no one who races can ride them because they're illegal, and you're cutting from the small end of the log.

Re: smugness, all I can say is: if you had as much fun riding your bicycle as I do, you'd feel smug too :D That's our big, dirty secret: riding a bent is so much fun it's addictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

A lot of recumbent riders are older men who were forced to ride them because injuries prevent them from riding an upright -- or engineers who can see the obvious design advantages.

---

You mean 'those injuries'? I think a lot of engineers also have had 'those injuries' haven't they?

You're right on about the crew I've seen on them. We get a lot of tourers come through here and I see them on the road. They just look like odd ducks every one of them. Birkenstock and sock wearing, grey bearded academics and friendly never comes to mind when I wave as we pass.

Thanks for the even handed assessment. I'm surprised tris make them illegal since they allow soft rides for god sakes. Talk about all about comfort. There also generally isn't much climbing or drafting, save for the Olympics on both counts. I'd be interested to try one some day just to see and interested to see what someone who can really ride could do on one as well. Not quite ready to make the jump just yet but trying one would be a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Birkenstock and sock wearing, grey bearded academics

---

Bwa! They also ride the goofiest-looking bikes possible...a Stratus or Tour Easy might be comfortable, but I think they look like a homemade tangle of random tubing with chopper handlebars.

The worst thing is that it's self-reinforcing. People see slow riders on them, so they assume the bikes are slow, so the fast riders won't try them...but the ultra-distance guys are starting to catch on. There are a few guys out there absolutely kicking ass on long brevets.

Thanks for keeping an open mind! I try not to lose sight of the important thing, which is to get out and ride, no matter whether you're on a Serotta, a Santa Cruz, a Bacchetta, or a $90 Costco special :D

[If you did want to try one out, as a roadie interested in efficiency and streetability, you'd be looking at "highracers", which have dual 26" or 650c wheels.]

The human body was designed for the legs and feet to move vertically up and down keeping the torso erect and stable. A 'normal' bike allows the body to move the way it was designed to move. Anyone who prefers to pedal with their feet higher than their ass should also prefer crawling to walking.

Besides, recumbents look ridiculous. I passed a lot of them today and laughed at them. :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Safety? No contest. On a road bike, you have to crane your neck at an unnatural angle to see anything but your front tire and a few feet of road in front of it. This is really unsafe, especially when you're tired and can't hold your head up. On a recumbent, you can always see everything in front of you, so you are safer -- and it's a lot more fun to ride when you can see where you are and where you're going.

---

I haven't waded through everything in this thread yet, but I gotta disagree with some of the above.

I was out riding yesterday and today thinking about some of the stuff you said above and I just don't see it. When I'm riding my traditional road bike, I certainly do NOT have my head at an unnatural angle and I can CLEARLY see the entire road ahead of me. I don't see how you can say "you have to crane your neck at an unnatural angle to see anything but your front tire and a few feet of road in front of it." You can only see a few feet?! C'mon...If you can't see more than a few feet in front of you without it being uncomfortable it sounds like your road bike wasn't properly fitted.

Which brings me to my next point, which is this statement:

"especially when you're tired and can't hold your head up."

How do you get so tired that you can't hold your head up? How long are you riding? Are you riding 300 miles a day?


I'll admit that I've never ridden a recumbent and would love to try one just to see for myself what they're like, but I've been on a lot of long-ish rides lately (60 - 90 miles) rehabbing my knee and I've never experienced any neck pain, wrist pain, shoulder pain, back pain, or any other type of discomfort (except in my legs which are getting the workout). So in my experience, I can't see the 'safety' or 'comfort' advantages of a recumbent. On these two points, I'm not sold on it yet by your argument above.

Question for recumbent riders:
How does your lower back feel after a long ride? Sure it looks like a comfy lounge chair...but it also looks like shocks and bumps would be transmitted right to your lower back. But again, I've never ridden one, so I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Part of the current prejudice against bents definitely has to do with the riders. A lot of recumbent riders are older men who were forced to ride them because injuries prevent them from riding an upright -- or engineers who can see the obvious design advantages. These are not the fast people :p Not to mention that no one who races can ride them because they're illegal, and you're cutting from the small end of the log.

---

That is directly where most of my prejudice comes from. The stereotypical 'bent rider is not necessarily the best embassador for the sport. There has been more than one time where striking up a conversation with a grumpy guy at a water stop and getting a brief little barb about the inefficiency of my ride, that I have been tempted to jab back saying "Well, you might be ablet to get rid of your huge gut if your bike wasn't so damn efficient."

It is something that I'll have to try, but I still think I'll be more "mentally comfortable" on a traditional bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

Question for recumbent riders:
How does your lower back feel after a long ride? Sure it looks like a comfy lounge chair...but it also looks like shocks and bumps would be transmitted right to your lower back. But again, I've never ridden one, so I don't know.

---

I actually was wondering the exact the same thing. I did a spine imaging fellowship in Madison, WI (ALOT of recumbent riders in that crunchy midwestern town, especially commuters). And the info from a bunch of the spine was docs was that they were seeing alot of premature arthritis and alot of herniated discs in recumbent riders. They were putting two and two together and believed it was due to the fact that they were commuting on these bikes and that every little bump in the road was being transmitted to their lower backs because they didn't have their thighs to use as a natural shock absorber.

Also, spats, you mentioned monitor. How efficient or inefficient is climbing on a bent on something like monitor or ebbet's compared to a traditional bike?

Oh, and Shoe it sounds like you probably do have a well fit bike. As pointed out there clearly are alot of people who end up with bad necks from road biking due to what people above have said. But as you pointed out a proper fit will typically prevent that problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

C'mon...If you can't see more than a few feet in front of you without it being uncomfortable it sounds like your road bike wasn't properly fitted.

---

Until I got on a recumbent, I didn't realize how much energy you use on an upright just to sit on it. Your arms are holding your torso up, your neck is holding your head up and curved backward so you can see, and your back is curved forward to keep your hips open enough to pedal.

Put yourself on the drops (or on aero bars) and leave your head in line with your torso. You're looking at your front wheel. To see the road, you have to look upward. I got used to it after a while on road bikes, but it still takes energy:
http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/riders.jpg

For contrast, here is a fast recumbent. Note that the riding position is similar to the road bikes in the picture above, but rotated 90 degrees. Instead of fighting gravity, you're working with it: head upright, back supported, no tension anywhere but fingertips.
http://bacchettabikes.com/images2k4/ez1.jpg

Seriously: sit on mine if we ever go on a road ride. You'll be amazed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Seriously: sit on mine if we ever go on a road ride. You'll be amazed.

---

you are probably right and I'd love to noodle around on yours if I ever get the chance. I just might indeed be used to the feeling and it's a non-issue for me now (that I may have a better bike fit than most as my PT is also a cycling coach and he gave me a really good fit with video analysis of my pedal stroke and all that stuff).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lph

They were putting two and two together and believed it was due to the fact that they were commuting on these bikes and that every little bump in the road was being transmitted to their lower backs because they didn't have their thighs to use as a natural shock absorber.

---

Much of it could be self-selection: as mentioned before, many people start riding recumbents because they're old and creaky and can't ride uprights anymore due to wrist, back, or neck pain. So you're starting with patients that are partially broken already.

However, some of it could be a choice of riding position. A lot of people buy recumbents that look like this, because they're less intimidating when you're a beginning rider. Note representative old fat guy with windshield :D
http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/images/V2-2.jpg
The problem here is that the back is very upright, which would translate some road shock up the spine, even though most bent seats are *extremely* well padded.

The type of bent I ride is called "short wheelbase" or SWB, meaning the cranks are in front of the front wheel. They are smaller, lighter, and faster due to a more aero riding position, but more intimidating for beginners due to a higher bottom bracket.
http://www.oates.org/chris/images/bacchetta-rider.jpg
Note that the rider's back is at an angle nearly perpendicular to the direction the rear wheel goes when you hit a bump. No compression = no discomfort or injury.

What this means to me: the farther back I lean the seat, the better the ride feels. It's an interesting difference: bumps that would absolutely smash my ass if I rolled them on a road bike without standing can hit me on a recumbent, but it doesn't matter -- because the impact is spread out across my entire back and butt instead of being concentrated on a few square inches of sit bone.

There are also recumbents with rear suspension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lph

Also, spats, you mentioned monitor. How efficient or inefficient is climbing on a bent on something like monitor or ebbet's compared to a traditional bike?

---

It depends on your choice of bicycle: see my novel about this further up the thread. However, this difference is overwhelmed by the difference between riders. On the Markleeville rides, I was the second strongest rider in the group, and the second strongest rider up the hills. The difference is least when you're spinning, and it takes a harder man than I to crank all the way up Ebbetts. (I did Ebbetts, Monitor, Daggett, and Luthor on that trip.)

I've ridden with faster riders who drop me up hills but can't keep up going over the Golden Gate bridge, and faster riders who drop me anywhere (though very few). On the century I did, I was keeping up with much stronger riders, because it was flat.

You're all welcome to sit on my bike if we ever do a road ride together.

spats your explanation of the back problems makes sense all the riders i saw in madison where on the ones with the straight back, which would indeed send all the force to a vertically oriented spine.

the explanation of patient selection does not, because these docs were observing it in young healthy patients. I don't think spine docs would be too interested in what was contributing to the arthritis in the back of an older broken patient.

spats, you are a true ambassador to your sport and I commend your even-headed valor!

that said, i think recumbents are more like snollerblades than spatulas. you see a lot of weird old dudes on them and they can't stop telling you how much fun they are. when you are on the lift listening to this, you know they are right: for the stuff they do, they are probably pretty fun...but you know for the stuff you do, they are no good.



...and no, i have never ridden one, nor have i snollerbladed. :D

I want a 'bent but can't afford one. Anyone have some plans for a decent one or one for sale, cheep cheep.

Up front, I ride a traditional road bike and do not own a recumbent.

I'm finding this thread incredibly ridiculous. On one hand you have Spat, who owns both types of bikes and is being very open to discussion about recumbents. On the other hand I'm seeing a bunch of people (not everyone) bagging on recumbents only to admit that they've never been on one...bad form.

Read the history link that Spats put up near the beginning of this thread. If it wasn't for the UCI, you'd be seeing recumbent races everywhere. The lack of young, athletic riders on recumbents probably stems from recumbents being banned from competition.

I ride my bike for the purpose of racing in time trials and triathlons...hence I ride a traditionally styled bike. A few years ago I had the opportunity to ride a tandem recumbent. I was at a bike show with a buddy of mine that used to ride for Trek and it took almost no time to get the bike moving faster than I've ever been on a bike. It was the most comfortable, stable bike I've ever been on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sphinx

The human body was designed for the legs and feet to move vertically up and down keeping the torso erect and stable. A 'normal' bike allows the body to move the way it was designed to move. Anyone who prefers to pedal with their feet higher than their ass should also prefer crawling to walking.

---

I guess we won't be seeing you in a pool anytime soon? Tough to swim when you're trying to stand straight up. Vertical is very efficient for walking/running, not so much with swimming. I know, this thread is about biking, but if swimming is one exception to the rule, maybe bikes fall under that exception too?

I too am tired of how preachy 'bent riders are, but if they're constantly under attack for their choice of ride, like I've seen in this thread...I guess I'd probably get kinda preachy too.

If you're fitted like the guy below, chances are you're going to experience neck and back pain.

http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/riders.jpg

:D As soon as I read that bents are for old men.. :biggrin: ... I had to order one. I ordered a Actionbent Road Runner with rear suspension. I want to be able to do some long road rides, and a bent will let me do so. It will let me ride sooner, rather than having to wait for my wrist to work again. The bike will get here next week. I'll let ya know how I do or don't like it.