Unhappy bentriders ? - Page 3

09-27-2003, 12:41 PM

jacques <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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 | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
varis at no spam please iki fi

09-27-2003, 01:10 PM

jacques <jamnospam@bluewin.ch> 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
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] - 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 | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
varis at no spam please iki fi

09-27-2003, 01:13 PM

-= ®atzofratzo =- <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> 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 | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
varis at no spam please iki fi

09-27-2003, 09:56 PM

In article <bl4ube$ncm$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> jacques <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

09-27-2003, 11:08 PM

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.

09-28-2003, 09:07 AM

Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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 | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
varis at no spam please iki fi

09-28-2003, 11:08 PM

"jacques" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>.. .
> 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.

09-30-2003, 07:45 PM

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 <nospam@no.no> wrote in message news:<Xns940179E877C99fubar123@66.134.198.18>...
> "jacques" <jamnospam@bluewin.ch> wrote in
> news

an.2003.09.25.17.57.53.690563@bluewin.ch:
> > 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.

09-30-2003, 07:46 PM

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 <nospam@no.no> wrote in message news:<Xns940179E877C99fubar123@66.134.198.18>...
> "jacques" <jamnospam@bluewin.ch> wrote in
> news

an.2003.09.25.17.57.53.690563@bluewin.ch:
> > 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.

10-03-2003, 05:09 PM

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____