Cycling UK Forum

Speaking as someone who's seen fit NOT to buy a recumbent, my reasons are as follows:
a) lack of storage space
b) lack of versatility - harder to take that quiet route down the canal towpath, and suchlike.
c) less visibility - peering over hedges, looking for oncoming traffic at T-junctions with parked cars both ways, looking over the top of cars in traffic etc.
d) from what I've seen, a general use recumbent is slower than an upright over mixed terrain - eg a 200k audax in Herefordshire.
e) other stuff, like sweaty seats, can't move your weight about (speed humps etc)
(a) is the real killer though.

In responce to an earlier message, you dont see them in the TDF or Olympics because the organisation behind road racing had them banned many decades ago.
They had the annoying habit of winning races and since most of the power for the cycling organisers came from manufacturers etc of conventional bikes well you can figure it out.

They are slow going up hill though and my one is slow on the flat also but its wonderfully comfortable.

Is this true? Were they banned?

Any chance of quoting chapter and verse, where and when?

Doesn't sound fair play to me. Surely, a bike's a bike!

Mick F. Cornwall

Thanks for the link to recumbent unicycling. Of course someone else has thought of it, how silly of me. I was however thinking of a more supine position. - Almost flat, with the head&shoulders tilted up a bit...
What do you mean, you don't carry shampoo on your unicycle. - "Take two bicycles into the shower! Not me. I use new..."

Mick F

Read about the banning of recumbents from racing in the TDF etc on the British Human Power Clubs website.

BHPC runs its own series of races on various circuits around the UK, it looks great fun, hope to give it a go someday.

Cheers

banning of recumbents

UKHCA Hand cycling association has meets at Castle combe every year and this form of "recumbent" cycling is very helpful to all disabled people.

Not using one's legs at all does have certain disadvantages when trying to keep extremities warm. Having them on a level with part of the rest of the body compensates a little.

Nye wrote:I confess from the outset that I’m intrigued…to the point of contemplating buying one (possibly a Grasshopper). I’ve done a lot of research and it seems that I can find lots of positive comments. Recumbent enthusiasts are, well, very enthusiastic. There can be no better form of transport according to them. Those not committed to ‘bents seem to be at worst, neutral. And there’s the rub. <i><b>How come then if they are so great there aren’t more of them about?</b></i> Can’t be the cost as there are lots of road bikes costing as much. So my question is then, <b>what are the BAD points of a recumbent</b> that everyone seems to not mention? I’d like to know before I spend my hard earned cash.<br>PS yes, I have test ridden a couple. On each occasion I was assured by the shopkeeper that balance comes with practice and it takes a few months to develop the muscle groups to get the most from one.

The key to Recumbents is ride lots of styles and then decide. Do not cherry pick from the Web Vendors without riding .You have only got to look at E.Bay to see how people chop and change because they failed to ride before buying . Perhaps you could ask the shop if they will buy back the recumbent if you don't "get on" in the first few weeks of ownership .
Some shops offer Tution or and long term hire service for those in doubt .
D.TEK HPVs advertise in the CTC mag and stock at least 100 machines
including second-hand recumbents always worth a call 01353 648177 .

andrew_s wrote:Speaking as someone who's seen fit NOT to buy a recumbent, my reasons are as follows:<br>a) lack of storage space<.

Can't say I entirely agree with you there Andy. I once saw a chap riding a faired 'bent pull over to the side of the road, reach inside the fairing, pull out a packet of 20 cigs and light one up. What more could you wish for?

mick said........Recumbents, no good in Cornwall!

But one of our main UK recumbent manufacturers is there so I assume they must work OK in Cornwall!!

andrew_s wrote:a) lack of storage space

Depends on the recumbent: my Windcheetah's rear box can take an A4 lever arch file and more

andrew_s wrote:b) lack of versatility - harder to take that quiet route down the canal towpath, and suchlike.

Probably a valid point. They're less good on rough terrain, probably why they weren't invented in the early days of cycling. They excel on smooth tarmac.

andrew_s wrote:c) less visibility - peering over hedges, looking for oncoming traffic at T-junctions with parked cars both ways, looking over the top of cars in traffic etc.

Agree about looking over hedges and poking out at T-junctions. You can see quite a lot under cars and lorries in traffic And the respect you get from traffic-bound cagers is one of the main reasons I ride mine these days.

andrew_s wrote:d) from what I've seen, a general use recumbent is slower than an upright over mixed terrain - eg a 200k audax in Herefordshire.

A recumbent handles much like a tandem: lots of inertia. You can't let the bike move around under you when climbing hills to even out jerky pedalling. If you can pedal smoothly they can climb OK, although they do tend to be a little heavier, and you can't stand to use a different set of muscles. Without too many steep hills a recumbent will be faster.

andrew_s wrote:e) other stuff, like sweaty seats, can't move your weight about (speed humps etc)

Sweaty seats in summer = lovely and warm in winter Agree about lack of body suspension: my Windcheetah is definitely more of a high-performance go-kart than a bicycle.

OTOH on a flat road into a strong headwind there's no contest!

Mick F wrote:Up hills, one doesn't have the bodyweight to assist the pedal turning.

In fact on most recumbents you can push much harder than on an upright

On an upright you counteract the pedalling force with body weight but mostly with pulling on the handlebars. You can push as hard as your arms can pull, plus a bit for gravity. Try pusing hard on the pedals without pulling the handlebars to test this.

On a recument you counteract the pedalling force with the back of the seat. You can push as hard as your legs can push. The main problem is that it's rather easy to over-do things and run out of energy. And your arms and shoulders don't get the same workout that they do on an upright.

IMHO the "slowness" of recumbents uphill is explained by pedalling dynamics: a recumbent and its rider are pretty-much glued together, so every pedal stroke has to acccelerate both the bike and the body. You can feel the whole mass every time you push.

On an upright you let the bike move underneath you, so on each pedal stroke you accelerate the bike and only part of the body: the movement of the bike allows the uneven power application to be applied more evenly to the main mass. This makes it feel easier, and probably makes it more efficient.

Same thing applies to tandems, unless the team learns to stand: tandems are "slow" up hills too

Simon L6 wrote:

andrew_s wrote:Speaking as someone who's seen fit NOT to buy a recumbent, my reasons are as follows:<br>a) lack of storage space<.

Can't say I entirely agree with you there Andy. I once saw a chap riding a faired 'bent pull over to the side of the road, reach inside the fairing, pull out a packet of 20 cigs and light one up. What more could you wish for?

Sorry, wrong sort of storage space.

What I meant was that I live in a small terrace, don't have a garage to keep it in, the front door is narrower than the wheel track of most tadpoles, and getting it further than the narrow hall involves a sharp turn than I have to turn the front wheel of an upright for.

Fonant wrote:

andrew_s wrote:d) from what I've seen, a general use recumbent is slower than an upright over mixed terrain - eg a 200k audax in Herefordshire.

A recumbent handles much like a tandem: lots of inertia. You can't let the bike move around under you when climbing hills to even out jerky pedalling. If you can pedal smoothly they can climb OK, although they do tend to be a little heavier, and you can't stand to use a different set of muscles. Without too many steep hills a recumbent will be faster.

My measure was 2 successive years on the Daylight 600 from Edinburgh -> Aberfeldy -> Crianlarich -> Corran ferry -> Acharacle. It's not a particularly hilly route by any means. The first year McNasty was on his normal (old) upright, and was the same pace as me, the next year he was on a Kingcycle, and was a fair bit slower.
Maybe there were reasons other than that, but I haven't seen anything on other Audax events to make me believe otherwise.

Having spent some time (including a LEJOG) riding a sort-of recumbent I can say that the only drawback is the inability, as stated far above, to move weight around on the bike and bunny-hop. Not good for any sort of off-road action, particularly if (as most 'bents do) it has got wee wheels.

"Recumbents can't climb hills" they say. Neither does a diamond frame if you don't gear it correctly. Every bike I've ever owned was initially massively over-geared - apart from the 'bent.

Well, I've got a windcheetah (3 wheel) and a velocita (2 wheel, short wheelbase, underseat steering). But my commute to work (3.5 miles, 50 metre drop in first mile - therefore a climb in last mile on way home) seems to be easier on my conventional tourers. Why?

1) Twisting my neck round to look behind me is much more tricky on a 'bent.
(as I get older and less flexible)

2) The velocita IS heavier than a tourer. So it's great once I've got it up to speed (i.e. tours - esp. flat ones) but for start-stop in city traffic, it's more tiring.

3) There's a short flight of steps, then a road to cross, to join two paths. Lifting the recumbent is a bit more 'cumb'ersome.

4) Sometimes all the attention from the slack-jawed yokels gets a bit off-putting.

5) You can't look down (between your legs!) to see the rear mech, to see which gear you're in.

6) Carrying two different spare tubes is a pain.

7) Tours with conventional bikes are an absolute nightmare. You find yourself on the brakes down every hill, as the coasting speed is higher than that of a conventional; then unable to use the rollercoaster effect up the next hill.

8) The Windcheetah is so close to the ground that one gets FILTHY from road-spray unless the roads are BONE dry. It only gets ridden in the summer, or if there's snow.

9) No suspension, & 100psi small wheels on the Windcheetah - lights just shake themselves to bits.

10) No handlebars to fit 'extras' on (on my 'bents, anyway). GPS, Lights, speedo, etc all have to be bodged on in other places. Thank goodness for Releasable Cable Ties.

But on the plus side:
(And these are things that I'd never have expected until I rode one)

1) one gets given MUCH more road space. Forget 'not-being-seen' - it's the reverse. Switching back to a conventional bike is like putting on the cloak of invisibility. Motorists give the 'bent the "What on Earth's that?" treatment, and a huge wide berth.

2) With underseat steering, all the controls are right in the middle of the bike. So the cables are all REALLY SHORT, leading to very direct and positive braking and gear changing.

3) Weight Down Low - holds the road like glue.

4) Camelbak on rear rack, not on one's back - water stays nice and cold.

5) (Velocita only) Feet up high - they don't get wet when splashing through puddles. Ditto the chain.

6) Lungs open, head up, eyes ahead. Just more comfortable.

So I'm keeping my bikes, of all shapes. Don't let me put you off giving it a go...